US Increasingly Concerned by theTension between Iran And Israel
WASHINGTON - Something has changed since the nuclear threat from Iran became a security priority for this nation years ago. Now, for the first time in years, the possibility of an Israeli air strike on that territory is spoken about openly, even if it's only to deny it. This is a sign that Washington’s concern about this tension is growing every day.
“We do not think that Israel has made that decision," Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said yesterday about an Israeli attack when senators pressed him about it.
It’s not the first time that this theme has emerged in the halls of power in this capital. On Feb. 5, President Barack Obama used a similar formula, almost with the same words. “I don't think that Israel has made a decision on what they need to do… We are going to make sure we work in lock step and work to resolve this, hopefully diplomatically,” said the Democratic leader.
The verbal escalation presents a dangerous cocktail involving the verbal aggressiveness of Teheran, calling for the end of Israel, and Tel Aviv’s fear or a nuclear Iran.
Israel affirms that Iran is on the verge of having deliverable nuclear weapons and that it will soon enter into the “zone of immunity,” at which point it will be impossible to return from the possibility that it has this military technology.
Still, few here imagine that Israel will take the step without the consent of Washington since, despite the little sympathy that Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lavish on each other, they have been allies for years.
But, amidst the unsettling movement of troops, there is still central question of when Israeli military action will be imminent (there have been open speculations on a date between April and June). Similarly, there are questions about whether its military is in the condition to carry it out, even unilaterally.
As far as the second question of what position the United States will adopt goes, Ronen Bergman, an analyst of Middle Eastern affairs for The New York Times, assured that for the first time in history, Tel Aviv feels that it is in the condition to carry out this type of action by itself. The article had the suggestive title, “Will Israel Attack Iran?”
Obama trusts in sanctions to force Iran to accept an agreement that would prevent the development of nuclear weapons. But the same Obama, who in November will fight for reelection, confirmed, “I will take no options off the table.”
For now, we know that both Washington and the European Union are preparing “unprecedented” economic sanctions against Tehran, according to what emerged yesterday from the White House.
What the government of Obama wants is to lock in the possibility that Iran will pay for its oil exports, which would generate a serious financial stranglehold on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s regime.
The measure might suggest that the United States and Europe are trying to accelerate the results of the sanctions imposed on the Tehran regime in order to renew nuclear negotiations or curb uranium enrichment for the purpose of making warheads.
The rhetoric of attack awakens echoes of alarm. “We believe that this military option could have irreparable consequences for the region and for world peace,” French Minister of Foreign Affairs Alain Juppé cried out yesterday. The diplomat called for doing “everything to avoid it.”
Local media has been analyzing the effect that an eventual Israeli attack on Iranian targets could have on the electoral campaign when Obama seeks reelection next November.
“Obviously, such an action would dominate the political discourse. We have to see if that helps the image of Obama as a strong president or hurts it, with a rise of oil [prices] that ends up undermining his efforts to revive the economy,” was the crude analysis that a Republican legislative advisor made for La Nación.
Parallel to the verbal escalation, worrying troop movements are beginning to emerge. Teheran’s announcement of military exercises in the vicinity of the Straits of Hormuz was set against a United States Navy fleet being sent to the same area.
American Public Radio confirmed yesterday the presence of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln in the area of the strait, which hasn't generated an announced military reprisal from Iran. The regime of Ahmadinejad had threatened to close the strait, through which a third of maritime oil sales pass, if it saw that there was an American warship there.
“If you listen to the (Iranian) rhetoric ... you might think that there are some tensions,” said Admiral Troy Shoemaker, on board the ship.
Considered little less than a floating city with its crew of 5,000 troops, the Lincoln is known in our nation for having participated, years ago, in military exercises with the [Argentine] Navy, according to what local sources told La Nación yesterday.
“We do not think that Israel has made that decision," Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said yesterday about an Israeli attack when senators pressed him about it.
It’s not the first time that this theme has emerged in the halls of power in this capital. On Feb. 5, President Barack Obama used a similar formula, almost with the same words. “I don't think that Israel has made a decision on what they need to do… We are going to make sure we work in lock step and work to resolve this, hopefully diplomatically,” said the Democratic leader.
The verbal escalation presents a dangerous cocktail involving the verbal aggressiveness of Teheran, calling for the end of Israel, and Tel Aviv’s fear or a nuclear Iran.
Israel affirms that Iran is on the verge of having deliverable nuclear weapons and that it will soon enter into the “zone of immunity,” at which point it will be impossible to return from the possibility that it has this military technology.
Still, few here imagine that Israel will take the step without the consent of Washington since, despite the little sympathy that Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lavish on each other, they have been allies for years.
But, amidst the unsettling movement of troops, there is still central question of when Israeli military action will be imminent (there have been open speculations on a date between April and June). Similarly, there are questions about whether its military is in the condition to carry it out, even unilaterally.
As far as the second question of what position the United States will adopt goes, Ronen Bergman, an analyst of Middle Eastern affairs for The New York Times, assured that for the first time in history, Tel Aviv feels that it is in the condition to carry out this type of action by itself. The article had the suggestive title, “Will Israel Attack Iran?”
Obama trusts in sanctions to force Iran to accept an agreement that would prevent the development of nuclear weapons. But the same Obama, who in November will fight for reelection, confirmed, “I will take no options off the table.”
For now, we know that both Washington and the European Union are preparing “unprecedented” economic sanctions against Tehran, according to what emerged yesterday from the White House.
What the government of Obama wants is to lock in the possibility that Iran will pay for its oil exports, which would generate a serious financial stranglehold on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s regime.
The measure might suggest that the United States and Europe are trying to accelerate the results of the sanctions imposed on the Tehran regime in order to renew nuclear negotiations or curb uranium enrichment for the purpose of making warheads.
The rhetoric of attack awakens echoes of alarm. “We believe that this military option could have irreparable consequences for the region and for world peace,” French Minister of Foreign Affairs Alain Juppé cried out yesterday. The diplomat called for doing “everything to avoid it.”
Local media has been analyzing the effect that an eventual Israeli attack on Iranian targets could have on the electoral campaign when Obama seeks reelection next November.
“Obviously, such an action would dominate the political discourse. We have to see if that helps the image of Obama as a strong president or hurts it, with a rise of oil [prices] that ends up undermining his efforts to revive the economy,” was the crude analysis that a Republican legislative advisor made for La Nación.
Parallel to the verbal escalation, worrying troop movements are beginning to emerge. Teheran’s announcement of military exercises in the vicinity of the Straits of Hormuz was set against a United States Navy fleet being sent to the same area.
American Public Radio confirmed yesterday the presence of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln in the area of the strait, which hasn't generated an announced military reprisal from Iran. The regime of Ahmadinejad had threatened to close the strait, through which a third of maritime oil sales pass, if it saw that there was an American warship there.
“If you listen to the (Iranian) rhetoric ... you might think that there are some tensions,” said Admiral Troy Shoemaker, on board the ship.
Considered little less than a floating city with its crew of 5,000 troops, the Lincoln is known in our nation for having participated, years ago, in military exercises with the [Argentine] Navy, according to what local sources told La Nación yesterday.
If Bibi is dumb enough to do this, Obama should come up with a noble excuse to stay out of it and assure his American audience (i.e., the Z-lobbies) that Israel is capable of handling it on its own — thanks, of course, to America’s generous annual gifts of cash and war toys.