Why Has the Tune in the US Changed?
Published in Maariv
(Israel) on 29 December 2011
by Ben Tien (link to original)
(Israel) on 29 December 2011
by Ben Tien (link to original)
Translated from
by Viktoria Lymar.
Edited by Steven Stenzler.
Why Has the Tune in the U.S. Changed?
In recent weeks, the high echelons in the White House began to channel messages of a blitz on Iran. What has urged them to switch their approach? Apparently, a concern that Israel would take the reins into its own hands.
By Ben Tien
Over the last few days Washington higher-ups have been playing a different and more aggressive melody than usual concerning the Iranian nuclear program. The first sounds have been heard in the speech by the U.S. President Barack Obama at the [General] Assembly of the Union for Reform Judaism; thereafter, it was the Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and the Chief of the American Army General Martin Dempsey who resorted to exceptionally trenchant expressions.
Over the past weekend, former senior Defense Department official Matthew Kroenig published an article calling on the Americans to attack Iran, and yesterday, the Daily Beast website reported that Israel and the U.S. are discussing the red lines, the crossing of which would lead to an assault.
It’s interesting to know what caused the American decision-makers to express themselves in such a harsh manner, evoking puzzlement as to their intentions. It’s even more interesting to know why exactly now. The answer is not unequivocal, and there are a number of potential explanations. First, the Americans may really mean what they say publicly. Possibly, in the wake of brand new information presented to them at the beginning of this month in the framework of a strategic dialog with Israel, it was made clear to them that there’s no room to wonder and the Iranians are on their way to the bomb.
Obama Is Showing Muscles
Second, the U.S. does not intend to immediately strike Iran, however, the Americans fear that the Israeli government is nigh to the decision on a military measure, similar to the raid in Iraq in 1981 and in Syria (according to foreign sources) in 2007.
If indeed this is so, wouldn’t the administration in Washington prefer to persuade Israel that the United States itself will take care of the matter, although in practice, it has no current intent to do this? The Americans’ objective, in this case, is to prevent an Israeli solo performance, which would set the region on fire right after the pullout of the American troops from Iraq and in the course of the election year in the U.S. when, traditionally, Washington favors industrial peace.
Third, the Democratic government in Washington watches how the Republicans, its rivals, contend with each other over who’s going to “beat” the Iranians stronger and faster. The Republicans’ “luxury” is, naturally, that at this stage, when the rule is in the hands of a Democratic president, they can only talk and voice hollow comments and need not deal with making the tough call.
Nevertheless, during an election year all the considerations in the U.S. are primarily political, and bellicose GOP remarks are pushing the Democrats into the corner and depict them as appeasers and ingratiators. Therefore, Obama and his close advisers feel like they have to “show muscles” and appear hardline.
Everything Depends on the Spin
To precisely what extent such a warlike move is a political issue, one can learn from the public opinion surveys in the U.S. There is a CBS poll of the last month, which determined that fifty-five percent of Americans believe that the Iranian problem ought to be solved in diplomatic ways; nonetheless, another poll established that about a half of Americans would support armed action, should it be obvious that the economic sanctions have failed.
In other words, if the U.S. administration is truly pondering at the moment an army operation even before the elections, then the key to launching the op, as well as to cutting the political coupon, is the success of the media “spin” around the reasons for which the U.S. went for the offensive.
The American administration makes it plain time and again that the military option is still on the table, but it’s clear that only the finding of a “smoking gun” will convince Obama and the American people that Iran should be hit.
The administration in the U.S., as stated, would rather refrain from complicated combative maneuvers; remembering the grave fiasco that president Carter suffered in Iran in 1980 which brought his defeat in the elections that year. Hence, we are to assume that the answer to the question “Why now?” lies somewhere between the desire to ensure that Israel would not act alone and the domestic political needs as November draws nearer.
In recent weeks, the high echelons in the White House began to channel messages of a blitz on Iran. What has urged them to switch their approach? Apparently, a concern that Israel would take the reins into its own hands.
By Ben Tien
Over the last few days Washington higher-ups have been playing a different and more aggressive melody than usual concerning the Iranian nuclear program. The first sounds have been heard in the speech by the U.S. President Barack Obama at the [General] Assembly of the Union for Reform Judaism; thereafter, it was the Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and the Chief of the American Army General Martin Dempsey who resorted to exceptionally trenchant expressions.
Over the past weekend, former senior Defense Department official Matthew Kroenig published an article calling on the Americans to attack Iran, and yesterday, the Daily Beast website reported that Israel and the U.S. are discussing the red lines, the crossing of which would lead to an assault.
It’s interesting to know what caused the American decision-makers to express themselves in such a harsh manner, evoking puzzlement as to their intentions. It’s even more interesting to know why exactly now. The answer is not unequivocal, and there are a number of potential explanations. First, the Americans may really mean what they say publicly. Possibly, in the wake of brand new information presented to them at the beginning of this month in the framework of a strategic dialog with Israel, it was made clear to them that there’s no room to wonder and the Iranians are on their way to the bomb.
Obama Is Showing Muscles
Second, the U.S. does not intend to immediately strike Iran, however, the Americans fear that the Israeli government is nigh to the decision on a military measure, similar to the raid in Iraq in 1981 and in Syria (according to foreign sources) in 2007.
If indeed this is so, wouldn’t the administration in Washington prefer to persuade Israel that the United States itself will take care of the matter, although in practice, it has no current intent to do this? The Americans’ objective, in this case, is to prevent an Israeli solo performance, which would set the region on fire right after the pullout of the American troops from Iraq and in the course of the election year in the U.S. when, traditionally, Washington favors industrial peace.
Third, the Democratic government in Washington watches how the Republicans, its rivals, contend with each other over who’s going to “beat” the Iranians stronger and faster. The Republicans’ “luxury” is, naturally, that at this stage, when the rule is in the hands of a Democratic president, they can only talk and voice hollow comments and need not deal with making the tough call.
Nevertheless, during an election year all the considerations in the U.S. are primarily political, and bellicose GOP remarks are pushing the Democrats into the corner and depict them as appeasers and ingratiators. Therefore, Obama and his close advisers feel like they have to “show muscles” and appear hardline.
Everything Depends on the Spin
To precisely what extent such a warlike move is a political issue, one can learn from the public opinion surveys in the U.S. There is a CBS poll of the last month, which determined that fifty-five percent of Americans believe that the Iranian problem ought to be solved in diplomatic ways; nonetheless, another poll established that about a half of Americans would support armed action, should it be obvious that the economic sanctions have failed.
In other words, if the U.S. administration is truly pondering at the moment an army operation even before the elections, then the key to launching the op, as well as to cutting the political coupon, is the success of the media “spin” around the reasons for which the U.S. went for the offensive.
The American administration makes it plain time and again that the military option is still on the table, but it’s clear that only the finding of a “smoking gun” will convince Obama and the American people that Iran should be hit.
The administration in the U.S., as stated, would rather refrain from complicated combative maneuvers; remembering the grave fiasco that president Carter suffered in Iran in 1980 which brought his defeat in the elections that year. Hence, we are to assume that the answer to the question “Why now?” lies somewhere between the desire to ensure that Israel would not act alone and the domestic political needs as November draws nearer.
Things have changed because successive Israeli governments have manipulated the American political process to favor the most reactionary, hateful and corrupt party to rear it’s ugly head in more than a hundred years. And now Israel is identified with that party – the Republican Party, the party of greed, racism and contempt for the poor and the middle class.
The Democratic Party in the US has always supported Israel, and for it’s efforts has been burned, as have the American public through what the American people rightly perceive as an Israeli proxy. And whereas the vast majority of Americans used to support Israel and made sure it was able to continue it’s existence through steadfast support, now a great number of Americans can’t stand you.