Romney Sista Souljah's Israel, suggests Israeli Jews are socialists like Obama

Mind you, these are the same Israeli Jews who Romney was crowing about just a few days ago during his visit to Israel. You'll recall that during the trip, after embarrassing himself in London, Romney praised what he claimed was Jews' innate ability to succeed at business (he apparently also liked their horns).

And now, after all that gushing, Romney takes a potshot at Israel.

And, it's only days after Romney comes out with an ad accusing President Obama of not being a true friend of Israel.  Romney then Sista Souljah's Israel in order to win over conservatives in America, who supposedly like Israel.

Is this guy on meds or something? Because this is downright erratic behavior.

And don't let anyone claim that Romney didn't just accuse Israel Jews of being socialists, aka communists, aka Soviets.  He tied Israel to his standard attack on President Obama in which he insinuates that the President is a socialist, aka a communist, aka a Soviet.  From Buzzfeed:

At a fundraiser today in Chicago — barely a week after visiting the Holy Land — Romney took a shot at the Israeli Kibbutz movement, a product of the early socialist zionist movement and integral to the story of the founding of the State of Israel.

“It’s individuals and their entrepreneurship which have driven America," Romney said. "What America is not a collective where we all work in a Kibbutz or we all in some little entity, instead it’s individuals pursuing their dreams and building successful enterprises which employ others and they become inspired as they see what has happened in the place they work and go off and start their own enterprises.”

Yeah, I mean what do those commie Israelis know about people pursuing their dreams?

But again, what's even odder is that Romney was just there. He was just criticizing President Obama for not being friend enough to Israel. And now Romney's taking potshots at Israel, saying they're just like Obama in not understanding how freedom enterprise, how America, how freedom works.

So Israel doesn't understand freedom, Mitt?

This will of course tick off Israel - bringing Romney's disastrous foreign trip to a perfect trifecta of ruined relations.

Either the man isn't entirely well, or he's intentionally alienating all of America's top allies because of some bizarre notion that it will help him in the election. It's not entirely clearly how attacking Israel and the UK helps Romney win votes at home. If anything, the erratic and contradictory nature of the attack makes one wonder whether Romney isn't completely all there.

What if his tax returns somehow aren't hiding a lack of payment of taxes, but rather hiding some kind of health problem? Read the rest of this post...

Romney praises socialized medicine in Israel that includes govt mandate

It's socialized medicine that covers everyone in the country. And Romney just praised its amazing ability to keep health care costs down.

"When our health care costs are completely out of control. Do you realize what health care spending is as a percentage of the GDP in Israel? 8 percent. You spend 8 percent of GDP on health care. And you’re a pretty healthy nation," Romney told donors at a fundraiser at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, speaking of a health care system that is compulsory for Israelis and funded by the government. "We spend 18 percent of our GDP on health care. 10 percentage points more. That gap, that 10 percent cost, let me compare that with the size of our military. Our military budget is 4 percent. Our gap with Israel is 10 points of GDP. We have to find ways, not just to provide health care to more people, but to find ways to finally manage our health care costs."

Well, Mr. Romney, here's how Israel does it - with nationwide government mandated health care.

From The Jewish Daily Forward:

Health care provision in Israel is made through not-for-profit health maintenance organizations. Six months after the Jewish state was established, in 1948, just 53% of the population had HMO insurance. Israel steadily increased its financial contribution to HMOs, making membership more affordable, and in 1973 it obliged employers to pay contributions toward employees’ policies.

But HMOs were still free to turn away people who they regarded as too high-risk, so in 1995, when 4% of the population was uninsured, the government made coverage universal by passing the National Health Insurance Law. It meant that everybody had the right — and obligation — to be covered by one of the country’s four not-for-profit HMOs. Residents of the country pay from income-related contributions collected through the tax system, which cover around 40% of HMOs’ costs. The state pays the remaining 60%.

People are allowed to choose which HMO to join and are allowed to change once a year, but the differences are mostly superficial: By law they are obliged to provide a standardized “basket” of services and medicines, from emergency to preventative. Except for some consultations and tests for which the patient makes a contribution to the cost — usually less than $10 — HMOs transfer funds to clinics, health centers and hospitals to cover all services. There are only a handful of completely private hospitals.

To some degree he can't help himself. His entire campaign is based on a lie - that he's a Republican, let alone a conservative - so now he keeps speaking the truth, like about health care in Israel, and then finds himself up against his earlier lies. Read the rest of this post...

Romney praises Jews' cultural ability to make money

I can see why the Palestinians are ticked, but no Jews have a problem with Romney coming to Israel and praising their "cultural" ability to make money?

Romney said some economic histories have theorized that "culture makes all the difference."

"And as I come here and I look out over this city and consider the accomplishments of the people of this nation, I recognize the power of at least culture and a few other things," Romney said, citing an innovative business climate, the Jewish history of thriving in difficult circumstances and the "hand of providence." He said similar disparity exists between neighboring countries, like Mexico and the United States.

Palestinian reaction to Romney was swift and pointed.

"It is a racist statement and this man doesn't realize that the Palestinian economy cannot reach its potential because there is an Israeli occupation," said Saeb Erekat, a senior aide to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

Romney's off to Poland next. Get ready for him to praise their contribution to American humor. Read the rest of this post...

Romney in Israel

First, American Jews still support Obama:

While Republicans may look favorably on Romney's visit to Israel, another group with keen interest in U.S.-Israeli relations -- Jewish Americans -- solidly backs Obama in the election.

Gallup Daily tracking from June 1-July 26 finds Jewish registered voters favoring Obama over Romney by 68% to 25%. That is essentially the same as Gallup's prior update on Jewish voting preferences.

Although one goal of Romney's Israel visit could be to attract greater support among Jewish voters in the U.S., Jewish Americans have been a traditionally strong Democratic group, so they are unlikely to become much more supportive of Romney regardless of the outcome of the trip.

And the Washington Post reports that Romney has kicked the media out of his big fundraiser in Israel, violating an agreement he made months ago. Either Romney is still smarting from the disaster that was his trip to London, and he wants to minimize potential damage, or he's planning on blasting Obama, violating another rule that says politicians of the other party don't criticize the President when they're abroad. Read the rest of this post...

Israel has strict gun laws

How un-American.

In Israel, assault rifles are banned except for special circumstances, such as communal self-defense in areas deemed to be a security risk. And while political violence in Israel is all too common and gun violence is a growing problem, random shootings of strangers – like the Aurora massacre -- are virtually unheard-of here.

Unlike in the United States, where the right to bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution’s Second Amendment, Israel’s department of public security considers gun ownership a privilege, not a right. Gun owners in Israel are limited to owning one pistol, and must undergo extensive mental and physical tests before they can receive a weapon, and gun owners are limited to 50 rounds of ammunition per year.

Not all Israelis, however, may own guns. In order to own a pistol, an Israeli must for two years have been either a captain in the army or a former lieutenant colonel. Israelis with an equivalent rank in other security organizations may also own a pistol.

In addition, residents of West Bank settlements, and those who work there, may own pistols for self-defense.

Read the rest of this post...

DOD study: Dire consequences for US if Israel strikes Iran

This story is from yesterday, but important. NYT:

A classified war game held this month to assess the American military’s capabilities to respond to an Israeli attack on Iran forecast that the strike would lead to a wider regional war, which could draw in the United States and leave hundreds of Americans dead, according to American officials.

The officials said the war game was not designed as a rehearsal for American military action — and they emphasized that the exercise’s results were not the only possible outcome of a real-world conflict. But the game has raised fears among top American planners that it may be impossible to preclude American involvement in any escalating confrontation with Iran, the officials said. In the debate among policymakers over the consequences of any possible Israeli attack, that reaction may give stronger voice to those within the White House, Pentagon and intelligence community who have warned that a strike could prove perilous for the United States.

The results of the war game were particularly troubling to Gen. James N. Mattis, who commands all American forces in the Middle East, Persian Gulf and Southwest Asia, according to officials who either participated in the Central Command exercise or who where briefed on the results and spoke on condition of anonymity because of its classified nature. When the exercise had concluded earlier this month, according to the officials, General Mattis told aides that an Israeli first-strike would likely have dire consequences across the region and for United States forces there.

Read the rest of this post...

What are Iran's intentions?

In previous posts, we looked at the recent press-driven run-up to war with Iran; and looked at Israel's likely strategy (here and especially here).

Now let's look at Iran's side. Based on my reading and observation, I think Noam Chomsky gets it exactly right in this recent piece, "What are Iran's intentions?"

As usual with Chomsky, there's more in the article than just the answer to the headline. I therefore suggest you read it through (it's not long, and very accessible).

This is the Iran part.

Chomsky first notes the work of Israeli strategist Zeev Maoz, who says “the balance sheet of Israel’s nuclear policy is decidedly negative” and who calls for a WMD-free zone (WMDFZ) in the Middle East (which was also called for by a 1974 U.N. General Assembly resolution, by the way). That WMD-free zone would include Israel, Iran, India and Pakistan.

Then he takes a look at Iran's historical strategic posture (my emphasis and some reparagraphing):

There is little credible discussion of just what constitutes the Iranian threat, though we do have an authoritative answer, provided by U.S. military and intelligence. Their presentations to Congress make it clear that Iran doesn’t pose a military threat.

Iran has very limited capacity to deploy force, and its strategic doctrine is defensive, designed to deter invasion long enough for diplomacy to take effect. If Iran is developing nuclear weapons (which is still undetermined), that would be part of its deterrent strategy.

The understanding of serious Israeli and U.S. analysts is expressed clearly by 30-year CIA veteran Bruce Riedel, who said in January, “If I was an Iranian national security planner, I would want nuclear weapons” as a deterrent.

Chomsky adds that Iran's support for "neighboring countries attacked and occupied by the U.S. and Britain" and "resistance to the U.S.-backed Israeli aggression" in Lebanon and Palestine are said to "intolerable threats to 'global order.'"

But the best way to defuse that any threat to "global order" in the region, bar none, is the aforementioned WMD-free zone, including Israel.

Will the U.S. support that solution? Chomsky:

Global opinion agrees with Maoz. Support is overwhelming for a WMDFZ in the Middle East; this zone would include Iran, Israel and preferably the other two nuclear powers ... India and Pakistan, who, along with Israel, developed their programs with U.S. aid.

Support for this policy at the NPT Review Conference in May 2010 was so strong that Washington was forced to agree formally, but with conditions:

■ The zone could not take effect until a comprehensive peace settlement between Israel and its Arab neighbors was in place;

■ Israel’s nuclear weapons programs must be exempted from international inspection;

■ and no country (meaning the U.S.) must be obliged to provide information about “Israeli nuclear facilities and activities, including information pertaining to previous nuclear transfers to Israel.”

A death knell for any serious attempt.

My take-aways:

(1) Iran's posture is generally defensive. Again, this isn't me or Chomsky talking. It's from U.S. military and intelligence officials in presentations to Congress.

(2) If they do develop WMDs to counter Israel, it would be within that defensive paradigm.

(3) Therefore, the best way to kill off that threat would obviously be to support the WMD-free zone in the Middle East that includes all important (and currently nuclear parties).

What could be simpler? No nukes for anyone. And what could be more difficult?

Further reading: Steve Clemons has an interesting piece in The Atlantic on the Obama-Netanyahu negotiation here.

GP

(To follow on Twitter: @Gaius_Publius) Read the rest of this post...

Andrew Sullivan on Iran: Obama's most dangerous political opponent is now Netanyahu

I'm watching the run-up to war with Iran very closely, since I think we might get one. I also want to know who's behind it.

■ Some background: We started here, by noticing a quiet bombardment in the "press." If you go back to that post, note that Obama's Pentagon chief Panetta is in the parade.

These two posts (here and here) looked at the role of Israel as the potential hand up the press puppet's ... behavior. From the latter post:

Based on my eleven-dimensional reading of this recent Iran article, another major one, this time by Dennis Ross in the New York Times, I believe it's now a two-handed game between Netanyahu and Obama, with Iran being the downer bull they're jointly punishing.

Netanyahu's position — "If you keep kicking Iran, I don't have to pull out this gun and make him really mad." Ross says it this way:

Israel worries that it could lose its military option, and it may be reluctant to wait for diplomacy to bear fruit. That said, Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, have consistently called for “crippling sanctions,” reflecting a belief that Iran’s behavior could be changed with sufficient pressure. The fact that crippling sanctions have finally been applied means that Israel is more likely to give these sanctions and the related diplomatic offensive a chance to work. And it should.

"Crippling sanctions" means just that; think I was joking with my "punishing the downer bull" metaphor?

Shorter Ross: "Bibi to Barack, don't make me do something stupid; it's all on you if I do."

■ All to prepare you for this blockbuster news and analysis from Andrew Sullivan, no raving lunatic.

He takes my idea of a two-handed game between Netanyahu and Obama, and gives it an eleven-dimensional twist, this time by spotting a controlling Israeli hand. Sullivan says Netanyahu is using the American Right — AIPAC (like Dennis Ross, quoted above) and the pro-Zion Left Behind crowd — to secure his own base and topple Obama from power.

I know; sounds ... novelish. Still, this stuff happens. Let's let Sullivan make his case (my emphases and some reparagraphing):

This is disturbing news [source FoxNews, 2/27/12]:

Israeli officials say they won't warn the U.S. if they decide to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, according to one U.S. intelligence official familiar with the discussions. The pronouncement, delivered in a series of private, top-level conversations, sets a tense tone ahead of meetings in the coming days at the White House and Capitol Hill.

What it amounts to is a formal declaration that, if the US attempts at any point to differ seriously with Israel's far right, the alliance is over.

That's after the most serious sanctions ever imposed on Iran, a covert war, and greater isolation for the Tehran regime both at home and abroad than at any point since 1979. ... Israel would, without warning, put US troops and Western civilians at direct risk of terrorist assaults, would likely tip Pakistan into even more outright hostility to any cooperation with the West, and rally the Iranian opposition to its foul regime. [And lots of etc.]

Note that the first quote comes from Fox (not unreliable in reporting Netanyahu, and a go-to spokes-source for Bibi).

If true, this is "essential[ly] blackmail" as Sullivan says. After which the right-wing Israeli government would use their agents (my word) in "Congress, the entire GOP, its media outlets (like Fox, and the Washington Post), and a key part of the Democratic fundraising machinery" to side with them — against Obama.

I can't see how to disagree with that analysis — again, if the initial Fox report is true.

Then Sullivan gets multi-dimensional:

I don't think you can understand the Republican strategy for this election without factoring in a key GOP player, Benjamin Netanyahu. He already has core members of the US Congress siding openly with him against the US president and the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman. ... Netanyahu's war would ... encourage American evangelical voters to turn out against Obama, the "anti-Christ", while other Greater Israel fanatics, like Sheldon Adelson, keep bankrolling as many Greater Israel GOP nominees as they can.

A global war which polarizes America and the world is exactly what Netanyahu wants. And it is exactly what the GOP needs to cut through Obama's foreign policy advantage in this election.

Be sure to read Sullivan's conclusion.

There's much I disagree with Andrew Sullivan about, but this analysis has me thinking. Would Movement Conservatives be part of this plan? As my old Uncle Straight Talk says: "Son, they'll do anything to win; anything. But you knew that, right?"

GP Read the rest of this post...

Retired general: U.S. can’t stop Iran from making nukes, bombing them won't be enough

I've been covering the possible run-up to a war with Iran — see here and here for the background on this.

Now we find that retired Gen. James Cartwright, former vice chair of the Joint Chiefs, is saying that even if we (or Israel) attack Iran, we still can't stop them from getting nukes. It's just impossible (my emphasis and some reparagraphing below):

A former high-ranking military official says the U.S. does not have the ability to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. “If they [Iranians] have the intent, all the weapons in the world are not going to change that,” retired Marine Corps Gen. James Cartwright, former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said late Thursday.

Speaking at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., Gen. Cartwright also said that Israel will not be able to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even if the Jewish state attacks the Islamic republic’s atomic sites.

“They can slow it down. They can delay it, some estimate two to five years. But that does not take away the intellectual capital,” he said.

At the end of the article, Adm. Fallon, former commander of U.S. Central Command is quoted as saying, “No one that I’m aware of thinks there’s a real positive outcome of a military strike.” (Central Command, or CENTCOM, is the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia; the war zone.)

Note that Cartwright is speaking on the record; this is not "friends are reporting" thing he's saying privately. He's laying down a marker.

Factor that into your Iran thoughts, on two levels. On the Iran level, that nation is saying it wants only peaceful uses of nuclear power. Whether that's true or not, even if we strike at Iran, we can't produce a positive military outcome (according to these generals). Whatever trouble we bring on ourselves (the U.S. and Israel), we still won't get a pony for it.

On the second level, this is now retired generals weighing into the U.S. discussion. It would be interesting to see if active duty generals are wheeled out by the Pentagon to counteract this evaluation.

If the Pentagon generals, or civilian Pentagon chief Panetta, says Cartwright and Fallon are wrong, put your ears on high alert and start listening carefully. Something will definitely be in the works at Smarter Than You headquarters.

GP Read the rest of this post...

Taibbi on Iran: "Another March to War?"

I've written, with a great deal of trepidation, about an apparent run-up to war with Iran, and the steady beat of scary articles — first here, then here. There's an even later article in the New York Times (discussed below) with the same drum-beat sounds in it.

Is a "new product" being rolled out? Is the battlefield of public opinion being "prepared"?

(If you don't know, the phrase "preparing the battlefield" is mil-speak (heh) for carpet-bombing the enemy prior to sending in ground troops. That enemy, in this case, is U.S. public opinion.)

Now comes Taibbi fils (yes, there's a Taibbi père, also a journalist). Writing in his Rolling Stone blog, Matt has this to say (my emphasis and some reparagraphing throughout):

You can just feel it: many of the same newspapers and TV stations we saw leading the charge in the Bush years have gone back to the attic and are dusting off their war pom-poms.

CNN’s house blockhead, the Goldman-trained ex-finance professional Erin Burnett, came out with a doozie of a broadcast yesterday, a Rumsfeldian jeremiad against the Iranian threat would have fit beautifully in the Saddam’s-sending-drones-at-New-York halcyon days of late 2002.

Note: Erin's only a blockhead if she believes her own spill; if she doesn't, she's a media-based operative. Big difference.

Taibbi then quotes Glenn Greenwald on Erin Burnett's pronouncements:

It’s the sort of thing you would produce if you set out to create a mean-spirited parody of mindless, war-hungry, fear-mongering media stars, but you wouldn’t dare go this far because you’d want the parody to have a feel of realism to it, and this would be way too extreme to be believable.

She really hauled it all out: WMDs! Terrorist sleeper cells in the U.S. controlled by Tehran! Iran’s long-range nuclear missiles reaching our homeland!!!! She almost made the anti-Muslim war-mongering fanatic she brought on to interview, Rep. Peter King, appear sober and reasonable by comparison.

As Count Floyd would say, "Oooh, scary."

What's the proscribed Iranian threat?

When you get to the imagined Iranian threat, it comes down to two carefully fogged-up concepts.

■ Nuclear weapons (capability), as opposed to, well, actual weapons. Taibbi:

In other words, “If Iran were to decide to be capable of making nuclear weapons, it would be capable of making nuclear weapons.” Unless I'm missing something, that’s a statement that would be true of almost any industrialized country, wouldn't it?

The fog in this case is the word "capability." The U.S. position has gone from opposing "nukes" for Iran, to opposing "nuke capability."

Listen for it, or you'll miss it — the word "nukes" lays down the fog for the rubes to get lost in.

■ Iranian (counter-)strike, as opposed to striking first. Taibbi again:

The news “hook” in most all of these stories is that intelligence reports reveal Iran is “willing” to attack us or go to war – but then there’s usually an asterisk next to the headline, and when you follow the asterisk, it reads something like, “In the event that we attack Iran first.”

He quotes this NBC report as an example (Taibbi's emphasis): “Within just the past few days, Iranian leaders have threatened that if attacked, they would launch those missiles at U.S. targets.”

More fog, of course. You just have to listen hard for the "counter" in "counter-strike" (they whisper it).

But this is at the level of ideas and media analysis. Let's look at the only thing that matters — power.

Will we, the U.S. or Israel, pull the trigger on Iran?

Will the U.S. and/or its mannequin/master Israel actually first-strike Iran? Taibbi surprisingly fails to answer that question, given his headline. He gets in some nice reflections on the Tolstoy-inspired madness of the media, then closes.

So here's me. Based on my eleven-dimensional reading of this recent Iran article, another major one, this time by Dennis Ross in the New York Times, I believe it's now a two-handed game between Netanyahu and Obama, with Iran being the downer bull they're jointly punishing.

Netanyahu's position — "If you keep kicking Iran, I don't have to pull out this gun and make him really mad." Ross says it this way:

Israel worries that it could lose its military option, and it may be reluctant to wait for diplomacy to bear fruit. That said, Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, have consistently called for “crippling sanctions,” reflecting a belief that Iran’s behavior could be changed with sufficient pressure. The fact that crippling sanctions have finally been applied means that Israel is more likely to give these sanctions and the related diplomatic offensive a chance to work. And it should.

"Crippling sanctions" means just that; think I was joking with my "punishing the downer bull" metaphor?

Shorter Ross: "Bibi to Barack, don't make me do something stupid; it's all on you if I do."

Want proof? Who is Dennis Ross? From the article's bio line:

He is now a counselor at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

And who is the Washington Institute for Near East Policy? An AIPAC think tank:

Martin Indyk, an Australian-trained academic and former deputy director of research for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), helped found WINEP in 1985. ... Because of his affiliation with AIPAC, Indyk felt his research wasn't being taken seriously and so started WINEP to convey an image that was "friendly to Israel but doing credible research on the Middle East in a realistic and balanced way." ...

WINEP is focused on influencing the media and U.S. executive branch; this is unlike AIPAC, which attempts to influence the U.S. Congress.

Don't forget that word "image" — it's the second-most important word in the description, after "AIPAC". It's always about manipulation of images, isn't it.

QED? It seems so to me. Your move, Mr. President. Just remember, one false move and this one comes home.

GP Read the rest of this post...

Will Israel attack Iran?

Hard on the heels of this post, "Are we being set up for war with Iran?" I was pointed to this one by the writer Masaccio on a different side of the same subject, "Israel, Iran, and the Bomb".

He considers whether Israel will make the move this year (my emphasis and some reparagraphing throughout):

Horse race coverage isn’t limited to the Republican primary. Foreign policy coverage has its own, exemplified by the title of an article by Ronen Bergman in last Sunday’s New York Times magazine, Will Israel Attack Iran?[.]

Bergman says yes. Israel will attack Iran sometime this year, before Iran enters the “immunity zone”, the point at which Iranian knowledge, skill and material will be so great that an attack will not derail their progress towards construction of a bomb. Iran denies that it is building a nuclear weapon, but no one seems to believe that.

The Times article certainly meets our criteria for "preparing the battlefield" of American public opinion. But are its statements true?

As Masaccio notes, Bergman lists three conditions for an Israeli attack:

1. Does Israel have the ability to cause severe damage to Iran’s nuclear sites and bring about a major delay in the Iranian nuclear project? And can the military and the Israeli people withstand the inevitable counterattack?

2. Does Israel have overt or tacit support, particularly from America, for carrying out an attack?

3. Have all other possibilities for the containment of Iran’s nuclear threat been exhausted, bringing Israel to the point of last resort? If so, is this the last opportunity for an attack?

According to Masaccio, the Times writer thinks "all three conditions have been met."

He then runs down a number of other media sources who weigh in on the same question. It's a good review of the current "What will Israel do next?" parlor game. If you care about this question — and frankly, with the Super Bowl now completely behind us, why wouldn't you? — check it out.

As to my favorite question: Could they be that stupid? Masaccio lists the considerable downsides to an attack (it's a compelling list), then says:

It’s harder to see the benefits.

Indeed, say I. But again, I said that once about Iraq, and look where that got us.

GP Read the rest of this post...

Are we being set up for war with Iran?

A number of stories like those below are turning up all in one week, and it's caught my eye, among others. Is someone "preparing the battlefield" of American public opinion?

Foreign Affairs:

Al Qaeda in Iran
Why Tehran is Accommodating the Terrorist Group

The article answers the "why?" question in a way you don't expect, but the headline has a Bush-like scream — Al-Qaeda; Iran; Get it? (Unlike the two examples below, this is not a news item. If Seth Jones is carrying someone's water, his name may be worth remembering.)

Washington Post, same week:

Iran, perceiving threat from West, willing to attack on U.S. soil, U.S. intelligence report finds

An assessment by U.S. spy agencies concludes that Iran is prepared to launch terrorist attacks inside the United States, highlighting new risks as the Obama administration escalates pressure on Tehran to halt its alleged pursuit of an atomic bomb.

The source here is Congressional testimony by Obama DNI James Clapper, so the article is news. (The man to note is Clapper.) The article also mentions that "thwarted plot" to kill the Saudi ambassador, a story some have found wanting.

Wired.com, still same week:

Iran Now a ‘Top Threat’ to U.S. Networks, Spy Chief Claims

American officials have complained for years that U.S. networks were crawling with Russian and Chinese hackers. On Tuesday, the nation’s top intelligence official told Congress that there’s a new danger to America’s information security: Iran. Too bad he didn’t provide much evidence to back up the claim.

Et tu, Wired? Yes, there's a disclaimer. But if a picture is worth a thousand words, that disclaimer is 988 words short of this picture.

Note that the Foreign Policy and Wired articles include disclaimers of a type, but the stories got scheduled and placed nonetheless, and with those headlines (all that most people read). The combined effect of those stories and headlines, and others like them with different hooks, is "Be very afraid of Scary Iran." Sound familiar?

Is a new product being rolled out? Fall product season starts after Labor Day. Spring season starts after New Years.

If we are being set up for war, let's ask a few questions, starting with: By whom? The candidate list is long:

  ▪ Some group of Democrats, including elements of the administration? (See Clapper's involvement above; also this from Leon Panetta, Obama's Pentagon chief.)

  ▪ Elements within the Pentagon, trying to move the needle? (Is there only one McChrystal in McChrystal-land?)

  ▪ Some group of Republicans (the Sheldon Adelsons of the world), working with or without a candidate's foggy support group? (For a prior example of this kind of interacton, involving John McCain, Randy Scheunemann, the 2008 campaign, and the nation of Georgia, try here and here.)

  ▪ The NeoCons, making a comeback? (AEI is on this too.)

  ▪ The Israelis — the government, their surrogates, or others? (Too obvious a perp to need a link.)

  ▪ Some combination of the above?

If this were a novel, watching these machinations would be fascinating. That's a large list of people with sharp elbows and a common purpose.

A second question: Will we fall for it? There are stories that, under Bush II, Admiral Fallon and others were responsible for stopping Cheney's Iranian war plans. Will Kill Iran, Part Deux succeed?

The consequences for getting this wrong are huge. As I wrote earlier, if we go for it, we may not win:

This really matters. It would change the world. If we get this one wrong, we'll be at war with someone who can bring the war back to us, to our Midwestern towns and suburban malls. The population of Iran is more than double that of Iraq (Iran is the 17th most populous nation on Earth). It has four times the GDP of Iraq. It's not peopled by tribesmen and sheepherders alone, but contains a great many urbanized professionals.

Iran is a society that, if pushed to war against the West, will go. The secret services in Iran include groups like the Revolutionary Guard and the paramilitary Basij. The last two groups alone are more than 200,000 strong. Ugly as they are in that spy-vs-spy way (are we more pretty?), they could easily bring the global war to our cities as a regular feature. Imagine Omaha or Moline getting the Tel Aviv treatment. There are lots of Molines. Is that a world you'd choose to live in?

Imagine the oil shocks after sabotage bombings in the Persian Gulf. Imagine oil priced in euros on an Iranian bourse. Imagine security checkpoints in every mall in America after the first couple of bombings. Imagine the eager, muscular overreaction of our national security protectors. Imagine the budget for war on steroids.

And please, let's not imagine that if the Israelis bomb Iran for us, we won't be blamed. If you were Iran, would you not strike at the source first, and the client after? We struck at Al Qaeda by taking down Kabul.

The Iranians might just decide to bypass the client and strike the puppet-master. Unless you think the puppet-master is Israel, that puts us — you, me and our shopping malls — in the cross-hairs.

If this is an op, who's placing all these stories? Is this pre-Iraq all over again?

If it is, let's hope Ms. Clinton is on the side of peace and the angels — along with some of our other generals — and that Mr. Predator Drone will get his post-Super Bowl militarism thrill in other ways.

GP Read the rest of this post...

Panetta to Israel: 'get to the damn table'

On this matter, Panetta is 100% right. The US needs to stop sending mixed messages and force this issue because with each year, it just gets harder and more complicated. Al Jazeera:

"We understand the concerns of Israel, we understand the concerns of the Palestinians.

"If they sit at a table and work through those concerns and the United States can be of assistance in that process, then I think you have the beginning of what could be a process that could lead to a peace agreement.

"But if they aren’t there, if they aren’t at the table, this will never happen. So first and foremost get to the damn table."

Read the rest of this post...

Ultra-orthodox extremists defacing billboards that display women in Israel

Religious extremists doing what religious extremists do. It doesn't matter what religion they are, because the extremism is the same.

Over recent months, women's faces have disappeared from billboards across the city amid mounting pressure applied by the powerful ultra-orthodox lobby, who find the female image offensive.

Several advertisers have erased female models from their posters in Jerusalem. Elsewhere in Israel, the winter campaign of Israeli clothing brand Honigman features a model cosily dressed in winter knits. In the capital, the woman's head has been removed from the image, leaving just her arm and a handbag.

Companies that do not fall in line with the standards of the extreme ultra-orthodox have frequently fallen victim to direct action. Across Jerusalem, female figures have been blacked out of billboards with spray-paint, or vandalised with graffiti branding the image "illegal". Other posters are simply torn down.

Read the rest of this post...

Reuters confirms Sarkozy called Netanyahu "liar," Obama seemed to sympathize

And some of you doubted me when I reported this last night.  Ha.  Here's Sky News' take.  And here is Reuters' take:

"I cannot bear Netanyahu, he's a liar," Sarkozy told Obama, unaware that the microphones in their meeting room had been switched on, enabling reporters in a separate location to listen in to a simultaneous translation.

"You're fed up with him, but I have to deal with him even more often than you," Obama replied, according to the French interpreter.

But the comments have since emerged on French websites and can be confirmed by Reuters.

Can be? That sounds like a bad to-English translation of "has been confirmed." Read the rest of this post...

Report: Sarkozy calls Netanyahu a liar, Obama seems to sympathize

UPDATE: And it's confirmed by Reuters.

UPDATE: For those who pooh-poohed the story, Le Monde hints at it as well:

Auparavant, les deux dirigeants se sont affligés à huis clos de leurs relations difficiles avec le premier ministre israélien Benyamin Nétanyahou.

Translated, more or less: "Earlier, the two leaders commiserated privately over their difficult relationship with Israelian Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu."

A story on a French new site claims that while Obama was at the recent G20 meeting in Cannes, he met with President Sarkozy of France and the two talked privately.  Well, something reportedly went wrong and half a dozen reporters overheard Obama's and Sarkozy's "private" talk which, at point, turned to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.  It went something like this, according to ArretSurImages.net:

Sarkozy: I can't see him anymore, he's a liar. (This might also translate to "I can't stand the sight of him" or "I can't stand to be around him anymore")

Obama: You've had enough of him? (Also translates as "you're tired of him?") I have to deal with him every day!

Here's the original French:

"Je ne peux plus le voir, c'est un menteur", a lancé Sarkozy. "Tu en as marre de lui, mais moi, je dois traiter avec lui tous les jours !", a rétorqué Obama.

Now, it's not clear from the article how many of the reporters actually heard this alleged back and forth - at least one said he put the head phones on to listen to the exchange after this was discussed - the but the story does say "several" confirmed hearing it.

Okay, I just understood one more part of the story.  The reporters didn't report on this because they felt they had cheated.  Why?  Because they were given some kind of box that they were to use to listen to the two presidents when they were doing their statements/press conference. Someone told them that they weren't being given headsets yet because then they'd be able to hear the presidents right now during their private off the record talk.  So what did some intrepid reporter do?  They used their cell phone head set in the box and it worked.   So that's why they felt they cheated.  I'm not sure I'd consider that cheating. Read the rest of this post...

Is Israel planning to attack Iran?

The Israeli press seem to think that an attack on Iran's nuclear program is imminent. The front page of Ha'aretz is filled with pictures of jets and missiles. Israel just tested a missile capable of hitting Iran.

Israel has no common border with Iran and so Israeli jets would have to fly over Saudi Arabia, Iraq or Turkey. However much the House of Saud may wish to see an attack on Iran take place, allowing Israel to fly through Saudi airspace would delegitimize the regime in the eyes of its people. Turkey has a much larger and more capable air force and would likely shoot the Israeli planes down. So any attack on Tehran is almost certain to take the route over Syria and Iraq.

As the occupying force, the US would have faced a catastrophe had they permitted Israel to attack during the occupation. Netanyahu may believe that the US withdrawal from Iraq and in particular the return of Iraqi airspace to government control gives them more scope for independent action.

If there is an attack, Ahmedinejad will almost certainly emerge as the winner. His ambition to build a bomb and become a declared nuclear power is clear, whether the Supreme Leader and the clerics would allow him to do so is less clear. The clerics maintain their influence in the Iranian regime through ambiguity. If Iran acquires a nuclear weapon there can be no ambiguity as to who is in control of it.

Israel can only bomb the uranium production facilities that it knows about. It is highly unlikely that the uranium produced to date will be stored in the same place. Israel can destroy the Bushehr civilian reactor but not prevent Iran constructing a fast breeder pile for producing plutonium. The difficulty of constructing a nuclear reactor for military purposes can be judged from the fact that Fermi's grad students built one in a rackets court.

Ahmedinejad would use the attack as an excuse to exercise Iran's right to withdraw from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and then perform a nuclear test as soon as possible afterward. All internal opposition to the program would be quashed, including from the clerics.

More seriously, Ahmedinejad would use the attack to paint the pro-democracy demonstrators as tools of the Zionists and murder more of his opponents than he has done so to date. Read the rest of this post...

Two boats with passengers from five countries have set sail "to lift the siege of Gaza"

Get ready — this will be taken as a direct challenge to Israeli control of "Greater Israel." Israel's deadly response to the last Gaza flotilla almost turned into a disaster for them (and still could, depending on Turkey).

From Just Foreign Policy (my emphasis):

TWO BOATS WITH PASSENGERS FROM 5 COUNTRIES (INCLUDING THE U.S.) HAVE SET SAIL TO GAZA

Organizers say: “It is time to lift the siege of Gaza which deprives 1.6 million civilians of their rights to travel, work, study, develop their economy and be free.”

The Canadian ship Tahrir and the Irish ship Saoirse have successfully reached international waters, initiating the “Freedom Wave to Gaza.” The boats have embarked from Turkey and are on the Mediterranean Sea. In all, the 2 boats carry 27 passengers from Canada, Ireland, U.S., Palestine, and Australia.

Kit Kittredge on board the Tahrir was previously a passenger on the American ship, The Audacity of Hope, which attempted passage to Gaza last July. Kittredge says, “ The only obstacles in our way are Israel’s military and the complicity of the Obama administration but in our sails is the wind of worldwide public opinion which has turned against the illegal blockade.”

There's more at the link. Note that this flotilla also leaves from Turkey. This means the Turkey–Israel issue is still in play.

Just like with the Occupy Movement and Tahrir Square before it, action counts. (It's also the antidote for depression, in case you were wondering.)

As always, stay tuned. This could "go big" as they like to say, and quickly.

GP Read the rest of this post...

US quits UNESCO. Will the ITU, WIPO be next?

As required by a 1990s law, the US has cut off funds to UNESCO after the latter voted to accept Palestine as a full member.

Although the US provides 22% of the UNESCO budget, most of that money goes to UNESCO programs rather than the organization itself. UNESCO provides support services for humanitarian programs funded by the member governments. Setting up an education program in a country like Afghanistan takes a lot of specialized knowledge and infrastructure. Having a ready-made bureaucracy that can be tasked with such programs helps the donors meet their objectives.

Attempting to hold such programs hostage does nothing to improve the image of the US abroad. The US spends $700 billion a year on the military and only $11 billion in foreign aid, 0.19% of GDP compared to a donor nation average of 0.30%. The largest slice, $3 billion goes to Israel and $1.5 billion to Egypt for signing the Camp David accord. $4 billion of the remainder goes to Afghanistan and Pakistan. This leaves less than $2.5 billion for the rest of the developing world put together and only a portion of that is humanitarian aid. The sad fact is that the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation spends more on humanitarian aid each year (over $1.5 billion) than the US Federal government.

The threat to withdraw from UNESCO did nothing to discourage countries voting for full Palestinian membership. In the end the US and Israel lost the vote by 107 votes to 14 with 52 abstentions.

Withdrawing from UNESCO will certainly not help the US but the damage to US interests will be relatively slight. It will mean that the State department has fewer carrots when it needs to rally international support for future US diplomatic initiatives. Withdrawal from some of the other US agencies is likely to have a much bigger effect and cause real damage to US interests.

And of course neither the Israeli government nor the US Israel lobby will offer a word of thanks for the sacrifice the US makes on Israel's behalf.

In effect a stick that was intended to control the Palestinians has become leverage that the Palestinians can use against the US. Abbas can force the US to leave any UN agency he chooses just by applying for Palestinian statehood. These include the ITU, the organization that establishes standards for the international telephone system and WIPO the organization behind international trademark, copyright and patent law.

First the positive news: US withdrawal from WIPO would probably be a good thing. Over the years the US has been the driving force behind a series of moves to appropriate Intellectual Property from the public domain and make it into private property. Republican and Democratic administrations have both been in the pockets of narrow vested interests against the public interest.

But US withdrawal from the ITU would be very damaging for US interests and could end up threatening the core of the Internet infrastructure. The ITU did not create the Internet but there are many governments that would much prefer that the ITU took over running it. The type of government that uses the term 'information terrorism' for freedom of speech.

The possibility that the Internet might power something like the Arab Spring was understood by Russia and China for at least a decade. The US currently holds a uniquely privileged role in Internet governance. Russia, China, Iran and other members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) have been maneuvering to replace bodies such as ICANN, IANA and the IETF with ITU committees where it would be easier to enact proposals to make the Internet more censorship friendly. Participation in the ITU is critical to US efforts to thwart such moves.

It gets worse. The International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) is at the center of US efforts to stop nuclear proliferation. Anyone feel safer if the US seat is empty there? As MJ Rosenberg points out, the US is putting real US national interests on the line in a futile attempt to block a purely symbolic move against Israel.

Participation in the UN agencies is the principal mechanism that allows the US to protect US interests. Giving that up for the sake of some trite point-scoring is ridiculous. There are many governments that would rather like to see less US influence at the UN for a while. For them, threatening to withdraw if Palestine is recognized is not so much a threat as a promise. Read the rest of this post...

Why is Obama not bombing Iran? And why he shouldn’t.

Not that I think Obama should bomb Iran in response to the terror plot just discovered. Republicans will certainly be calling for a military response. On past precedent, a military response would be justified. Yet this has been rulled out. Why?

First off we have to exclude the suggestion that not bombing is a sign of weakness. There is really nothing easier for a US president to do than to press the button for military action. Bush II proved that it is easy for a coward to send others in to fight a war. Russia and China would protest a military action, but they would support it in private if they were convinced the plot was real. Not bombing will take much more courage for Obama than the easy decision to attack.

One explanation for the lack of action is that the plot was 'aspirational' not 'operational', this being the cute phrase used in cases where the FBI has infiltrated some group with an agent provocateur who costructed a plot where none existed before. But at least one of the plotters was a member of the Qods force which means that they were under the Iranian chain of command. Such people do not spontaneously plot to bomb restaurants without direct and unambiguous orders from their superiors.

Another possible explanation is that the tip off came from inside the Iranian regime itself. Like the old Soviet illegals, the Qods force reports through operatives stationed in the local embassy. Reading between the lines of Holder's statement suggests to me that this might have occured or that this is what the Administration may want the Iranian goverment to assume occurred.

In either case, not bombing is the smartest response. Ahmedinejad is engaged in a power struggle within the regime. He has spent most of his time and energy as President attempting to provoke attack by Israel or the US. An external attack would give him the authority to liquidate opponents within the regime. While the Supreme Leader might retain titular authority, his actual position would be reduced to a cipher and the present incumbent most likely disposed of as well.

Not bombing deprives the would-be Napoleon of the pretext for his enabling act. Time is running short for the mullahs. They can either choose to return power to their citizens and permit a free election or they can attempt to continue their illegitimate rule through a series of Ahmadinejads and hope that none of them attempts to secure absolute rule. Read the rest of this post...