Obama planning to attack Iran?

posted at 10:45 am on November 3, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

The Washington Post and the New York Times have nothing on this, so let’s take a look overseas to see what our government might be planning, shall we?  The Guardian reports that the UK has begun preparing to support the US in a strike on Iran, thanks to a new IAEA report that concludes — very much belatedly — that Tehran has been working all along to develop nuclear weapons:

Britain’s armed forces are stepping up their contingency planning for potential military action against Iran amid mounting concern about Tehran’s nuclear enrichment programme, the Guardian has learned.

The Ministry of Defence believes the US may decide to fast-forward plans for targeted missile strikes at some key Iranian facilities. British officials say that if Washington presses ahead it will seek, and receive, UK military help for any mission, despite some deep reservations within the coalition government.

In anticipation of a potential attack, British military planners are examining where best to deploy Royal Navy ships and submarines equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles over the coming months as part of what would be an air and sea campaign.

They also believe the US would ask permission to launch attacks from Diego Garcia, the British Indian ocean territory, which the Americans have used previously for conflicts in the Middle East.

We’ll come back to the Guardian in a moment.  First, let’s go to the closest point to Washington DC where the IAEA findings are being reported.  That would be Canada, of course:

Iran is on course to build nuclear weapons, according to evidence compiled by United Nations inspectors.

Research to be presented by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) next week will provide details pointing to the military dimension of Iran’s nuclear program. …

The atomic watchdog is expected to say that Iran is working on nuclear missile technology, researching the detonation of a nuclear device and dramatically increasing uranium enrichment at a facility buried deep in a mountainside. Its report is likely to take the Middle East a step closer to a nuclear arms race. …

The key part of the IAEA report is expected to say that Iran is dramatically increasing uranium enrichment at a facility in Qom, deep in a mountainside, that could within months be fortified against conventional weaponry.

Gee, who was it that tried to tell us that the Iranians were throwing everything they had at developing nuclear warheads?  George Bush.  Who was it that said that Iran had stopped working on that project in 2003?  Why, it was the IAEA, along with the CIA in their now-infamous National Intelligence Estimate of 2007, which Democrats used to paint Bush as a warmonger.  That included a backbencher in the US Senate named Barack Obama, who once derided the very notion of a “tiny” Iran being a threat to the US.

As President, however, Obama seems to be singing a much different tune, as reported by the British wire service Reuters:

A report due next week from the IAEA nuclear watchdog will be an important point for the world to assess whether Iran is meeting its obligations, the White House said on Thursday. …

The United States and its partners are concerned that Iran’s nuclear program is aimed at developing a nuclear weapon capability. Tehran says the programme is peaceful and is aimed at producing energy and for medical purposes.

Remember when Obama and his fellow Democrats derided John McCain for chanting, “Bomb bomb Iran”?  Of course you do — but the Guardian has some memory loss, as Power Line notes:

The Guardian assures us that President Obama would really prefer not to attack Iran prior to next year’s election:

They made clear that Barack Obama, has no wish to embark on a new and provocative military venture before next November’s presidential election. But they warned the calculations could change because of mounting anxiety over intelligence gathered by western agencies, and the more belligerent posture that Iran appears to have been taking.

Times certainly have changed since 2008. One of the West’s most left-wing newspapers reports that President Obama is planning a pre-emptive attack on a Middle Eastern country, and, rather than being critical of such a strike, the paper merely wishes to run interference against any suspicion that it may be politically motivated. It’s enough to give you whiplash.

Yes, I’m sure that the Obama administration won’t attack Iran before the next election, but not because they’re afraid of politicizing a new war.  They’re afraid of losing what’s left of the progressive base they’ve begun to assiduously court through Obama’s new class-warfare rhetoric.  Launching another war after Obama’s intervention in Libya and his drone strikes in Yemen would probably be the last straw for many of them, even if it would be the right thing to do.  If Iran is truly close to developing nuclear weapons, the extremely lousy option of military strikes might very well be the right thing to do, especially after the discovery of the Iranian military plot to conduct terrorist attacks in the US.  However, if that’s the right thing to do, then get it done before the Iranians have a chance to defend against it, and leave the electoral cycle out of the strategic consideration.

Finally, it might be folly to expect a newspaper like The Guardian to give consistent treatment to the same subject regardless of which party controls the White House, but the Guardian is open about its biases.  It’s less of a stretch to expect newspapers like the Washington Post and the New York Times to report the news at all.  If this had been Bush and Tony Blair revving up attack plans, does anyone doubt that the pages of both papers would have been filled with skeptical analysis by now?

Update: There are also plenty of rumors that Israel might attack Iran unilaterally — which would perhaps save the US and UK from diplomatic and military backlash — but Barry Rubin scotches that idea:

First, Israel has decided not to attack Iran–a point I’m making due both to direct knowledge and direct statements, a few of them made publicly, by those involved in the debate. The reasons for this decision make sense but I won’t list them here to save your time.

Second, there is no new development to prompt such an attack. On the contrary, all of the reports have been about the slow pace of Iranian progress toward obtaining deliverable nuclear weapons. There is no urgency in such an operation.

Third, all the reasons for not attacking Iran (okay, I’m changing my mind a bit from point one), are stronger than ever. Israel can expect little international support, the moves toward radicalism in Egypt, Lebanon, Libya, Tunisia, and Turkey (plus a heightened risk-taking by a shaky Syrian regime) make the environment for such an attack far more dangerous for Israel than a year or two ago. And again there is no vital incentive for launching such an attack.

Fourth, the Jerusalem Post article doesn’t even say that Israel is thinking of attacking Iran but only that there is a plan and that practicing is going on by the Israeli military. I should hope so but that proves nothing about an imminent attack. The Haaretz article says that Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu has asked the cabinet to make such an attack. If that’s true there’d be a lot more leaks and since Netanyahu not so long ago persuaded the cabinet not to do it that also sounds doubtful. But again, even if true that wouldn’t be an imminent attack but a start for a new round of debate.

Jeff Dunetz does the same:

If Israel is good at anything, its good at keeping secrets. In fact the country gets falsely accused of some sort of covert military action, Israel’s government will refuse to confirm or deny the accusations even if they are false.

It has been my experience that if you hear a rumor about an upcoming Israeli action, it is probably fake. These rumors stem from the press interpreting statements from Israeli government officials as “hints” that they were working on an attack. Now if Israel was going to launch a very  difficult military operation that would, at best damage but not destroy the Iranian nuke program and at worst begin a war with a very strong Iranian military, history and logic would indicate that the last thing they would do would be to drop hints that Iran should sharpen its anti-aircraft skills because an attack was coming. …

It’s interesting that the same media that is so quick to criticize any Israeli military effort is seemingly beating the drums of war for Israel to attack Iran.

Interesting is certainly one word, especially after the orgy of media recriminations against Bush in 2007 after the publication of that deeply flawed — and thoroughly discredited — 2007 NIE.

Update II: I wrote Israel in first paragraph where I meant Iran — sorry about that.  More coffee, please!

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

A strike on Israel? Typo alert!!

flipflop on November 3, 2011 at 10:47 AM

UK has begun preparing to support the US in a strike on Israel

huh?????

cmsinaz on November 3, 2011 at 10:47 AM

Ed, as insane as BHO is, I think that sentence should be “attack on IRAN,” not “ISRAEL.”

But I could be wrong. He’s nuts.

Beo on November 3, 2011 at 10:48 AM

Somebody made a Freudian slip.

Seth Halpern on November 3, 2011 at 10:48 AM

The Guardian reports that the UK has begun preparing to support the US in a strike on Israel

Wha?

Fallon on November 3, 2011 at 10:49 AM

The Guardian reports that the UK has begun preparing to support the US in a strike on Israel,

I can actually see Obama pushing for that.

One on Iran? Not so much.

teke184 on November 3, 2011 at 10:49 AM

Diego Garcia, that means B-52′s, or at least it did years ago; that would be one big strike.

Bishop on November 3, 2011 at 10:50 AM

Wag the dog?

Wouldn’t put it past the criminal 0bama regime, not for a second.

Rebar on November 3, 2011 at 10:50 AM

again, we have to go overseas to actually get any news at all…

i really despise that idiot sitting in the oval office…

ok to bash W from the cheap seats and now that he is center stage changes his tune..
and the lsm will praise him big time if he actually persues it

cmsinaz on November 3, 2011 at 10:51 AM

But they warned the calculations could change because of mounting anxiety over intelligence gathered by western agencies, and the more belligerent posture that the US electorate is taking towards President Zero. Iran appears to

Thats what this is all about. Zero will use anything he can to stay in power, including starting a war. Remember what Downgrade said when the people of Iran were trying to revolt? He said he wanted to wait and see how that all shook out or words to that effect.

Now he’s ready to attack Iran after voting “present?”

Everything he does is completely and sigularly political.

dogsoldier on November 3, 2011 at 10:52 AM

That’s a peace prize!

Greek Fire on November 3, 2011 at 10:52 AM

Wag the dog?

Wouldn’t put it past the criminal 0bama regime, not for a second.

Rebar on November 3, 2011 at 10:50 AM

That was my first thought. Strange to take a sudden interest in military action after all of those assurances that he’d talk with anyone (except Republicans) any time, without preconditions.

obladioblada on November 3, 2011 at 10:53 AM

Obama planning to attack Iran?

LOL. When pigs fly . . . .

EconomicNeocon on November 3, 2011 at 10:53 AM

Eager for the newly-minted liberal warmongers and hawks among us to jump on board for this and future military endeavors!

Good Lt on November 3, 2011 at 10:53 AM

This should make his base happy…

Del Dolemonte on November 3, 2011 at 10:54 AM

President Obama would really prefer not to attack Iran prior to next year’s election

Which is exactly why Iran knows that they can push the envelope for another year. I guess we will see what happens. My prediction is that if pressured Obama will commit a small amount of troops and try to play both sides. Iran is a threat that must be dealt with/We are not involved in an all out war with Iran.

jeffn21 on November 3, 2011 at 10:54 AM

What a shock. Liberals burying their collective heads in the sand only to find out their view of human nature is completely wrong.

It is their view of human nature that makes their ideology so dangerous to the survival of our republic.

ClanDerson on November 3, 2011 at 10:55 AM

Yes, I’m sure that the Obama administration won’t attack Iran before the next election, but not because they’re afraid of politicizing a new war. They’re afraid of losing what’s left of the progressive base they’ve begun to assiduously court through Obama’s new class-warfare rhetoric.

I don’t share your confidence. I bet he would get a overall favorable bounce in approvals.

a capella on November 3, 2011 at 10:55 AM

preparing to support the US in a strike on Israel????

Methinks ole Ed may need a nap!

Katfish on November 3, 2011 at 10:56 AM

The Guardian reports that the UK has begun preparing to support the US in a strike on Israel

Uhhh…up too late last night, Ed?

MadisonConservative on November 3, 2011 at 10:56 AM

No Way Captain Peace Prize authorizes a strike on Iran. I’ll bet my Hopenchange T-Shirt!

search4truth on November 3, 2011 at 10:56 AM

dogsolider,

I kind of wonder that when a person knows he’s in a losing proposition in getting re-elected he’ll try and create as much damage in his wake on his way out by doing things unilaterally so that the incoming will have to deal with the mess in the hope to make him look bad over the next few years? And make a comeback for 2016? Hmmmm, I wonder.

Kokonut on November 3, 2011 at 10:56 AM

Tom Leherer came up with the plan of attack back in the 60s in his song, “Folk Song Army”:

So join in the folk song army,
Guitars are the weapons we bring
To the fight against poverty, war, and injustice.
Ready! aim! sing!

EconomicNeocon on November 3, 2011 at 10:58 AM

Guardian reports that the UK has begun preparing to support the US in a strike on Israel,

Wha???
Please fix your post. I’d like to share it.

bridgetown on November 3, 2011 at 11:00 AM

I could see Dear Liar attacking Iran — if he perceived that his support & donations from Jews was dropping precipitously.

Military plans are made all the time. It’s routine to have a range of options available to a President.

rbj on November 3, 2011 at 11:00 AM

My guess is that these reports are directed at Russia and China more than Iran.

I can’t see the UK joining with us in an attack on Iran.

A little diplomatic saber-rattling to get Moscow and Beijing to support tougher sanctions.

Won’t work.

SteveMG on November 3, 2011 at 11:01 AM

Guardian reports that the UK has begun preparing to support the US in a strike on Israel,

Wha???
Please fix your post. I’d like to share it.

bridgetown on November 3, 2011 at 11:00 AM

But doesn’t that make more sense considering who Obama has supported in the past?

shick on November 3, 2011 at 11:02 AM

These libs in the media embrace war now, because it’s good for Obama’s reelection. Everything is politics for these scum.

milemarker2020 on November 3, 2011 at 11:02 AM

I have no confidence in Obama’s motivations or his capability as Commander in Chief. If he is planning such an attack, his motive won’t be protecting our national security. An attack on Iran may become necessary, but an attack motivated by Obama’s election agenda and and steered by the circle of fools who advise him would be an unmitigated disaster.

novaculus on November 3, 2011 at 11:03 AM

This may sound odd, even dubious, but I have a rather reliable source who told me and other people close to the family that an attack on Iran has been “okay’d” by the US – whether this attack will be led or involve the US, I don’t know, but Israel was given the go ahead to attack.

Either way, if the US is involved in any way, how is the US going to pay for it?

Sleeper on November 3, 2011 at 11:04 AM

Bo asked axlerod if the country would re-elect him as a war time president and axlerod replied Buuush was.

tim c on November 3, 2011 at 11:05 AM

I could see Dear Liar attacking Iran — if he perceived that his support & donations from Jews was dropping precipitously.

Military plans are made all the time. It’s routine to have a range of options available to a President.

rbj on November 3, 2011 at 11:00 AM

Yep. And it will be a bait and switch. Talk big and no action.

VegasRick on November 3, 2011 at 11:05 AM

Great… I wonder what our Chinese bankers think of the plan.

JohnGalt23 on November 3, 2011 at 11:05 AM

Tom Leherer came up with the plan of attack back in the 60s in his song, “Folk Song Army”:

So join in the folk song army,
Guitars are the weapons we bring
To the fight against poverty, war, and injustice.
Ready! aim! sing!

EconomicNeocon on November 3, 2011 at 10:58 AM

But are they Gibson guitars? I doubt it.

Del Dolemonte on November 3, 2011 at 11:07 AM

Anyone notice yet that Obama is pro Air Force. (spoken from an Airman)

shick on November 3, 2011 at 11:08 AM

Wag the Dog?

Ward Cleaver on November 3, 2011 at 11:08 AM

If this had been Bush and Tony Blair revving up attack plans, does anyone doubt that the pages of both papers would have been filled with skeptical analysis by now?

Far more than skeptical analysis. The New York Times would also have their front pages filled with strategic battle plans and classified information for Iran to properly prepare against the assault. (all under the protection of the 1st amendment, of course)

Rovin on November 3, 2011 at 11:13 AM

Tehran has been working all along to develop nuclear weapons

Gasp! I’m SHOCKED! SHOCKED, I tell you!

As for Barry, the only war he’s interested in right now is the one he’s leading at home; pitting one group against another in order to cover for his abysmal policy failures to get the economy moving.

GarandFan on November 3, 2011 at 11:15 AM

Gee, who was it that tried to tell us that the Iranians were throwing everything they had at developing nuclear warheads? George Bush.

That was the reason George gave for attacking Iraq. That they were building WMD. If he believed that about Iran, why didn’t he attack Iran?

keep the change on November 3, 2011 at 11:18 AM

The Guardian reports that the UK has begun preparing to support the US in a strike on Iran…

After seeing how Obama handled Libya this should probably be reversed. I doubt he will act, but if he does it will be from behind.

NotCoach on November 3, 2011 at 11:23 AM

And I don’t believe that Obama would dare to do it as he didn’t do it the cheap way with the Green uprising. There is no benefit to it and the transparent political play is just that: transparent.

Yes, Iran should get back ounce for ounce every pound of explosives and every rocket and cartridge fired at our troops that they sent into Af-Pak and Iraq. We don’t have anyone with the brains or balls to say that or do it. Yet a single flight of A-10s would take out the oil and natural gas sector of Iran and that would be it for the nukes, the mullahs and the government. A stealth aircraft could do that, too, probably about 2 of them and not even deliver 1/10th of what has been fired at our troops to get that effect. Not a soul would be killed by such an attack… not directly at any rate.

ajacksonian on November 3, 2011 at 11:24 AM

From RIA, I would vote for a total blockade.

Israel proposes naval blockade of Iran
13:34 21/05/2008
TEL AVIV, May 21 (RIA Novosti) – The Israeli prime minister has proposed that a U.S. naval blockade be imposed on Iran to stop the Islamic Republic from moving ahead with its uranium enrichment program, an Israeli newspaper said on Wednesday.
According to the Haaretz daily, at a meeting in Jerusalem with the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, Ehud Olmert said, “The present economic sanctions [against Iran] have run out of steam,” and proposed “a naval blockade of Iran,” using the U.S. navy to limit movement in and out of the Islamic Republic by Iranian merchant ships.
As an alternative, he proposed placing restrictions on Iranian aircraft, businessmen and senior Iranian officials at airports throughout the world.
“Iranian businesspeople, unable to land anywhere in the world, would pressure the regime,” Haaretz quoted Olmert as saying.

Speakup on November 3, 2011 at 11:26 AM

That was the reason George gave for attacking Iraq. That they were building WMD. If he believed that about Iran, why didn’t he attack Iran?

keep the change on November 3, 2011 at 11:18 AM

With what political capital exactly? But why doesn’t it surprise me you are obtuse on this issue as well?

NotCoach on November 3, 2011 at 11:26 AM

This is a standard Obama blocking move.

To hold up Israel’s real attack, Obama will talk on TOTUS about a Obama lead from behind attack and talk and talk.

Then he can threaten Israel to let him do it or he will stop them and shoot down the Israeli Airforce.

If Obama promises anything to help Israel, he is lying through his teeth.

jimw on November 3, 2011 at 11:26 AM

Update II: I wrote ‘Israel’ in first paragraph where I meant ‘Iran’ — sorry about that. More coffee, please!

Considering BHO’s attitude towards Israel, EITHER is possible.

listens2glenn on November 3, 2011 at 11:27 AM

The Guardian assures us that President Obama would really prefer not to attack Iran prior to next year’s election

Double Duh.

Priority One: Win

Priority Infinity: Protect the American people

fogw on November 3, 2011 at 11:27 AM

Obama planning to attack Iran?

If at all, not before October, 2012!

ToddonCapeCod on November 3, 2011 at 11:27 AM

“The Middle East is obviously an issue that has plagued the region for centuries.”
~Obama [In 2010]

davidk on November 3, 2011 at 11:33 AM

Obama planning to attack Iran?

Yes. But not quite yet.

Also, Mexico. Don’t laugh. A war along the border with the cartels may be in our near future.

This concern for the “progressive base” is highly overrated. They’ve got nowhere else to go. Both know it. Anyway, he’s got no choice. He’s being economically beaten a little more each day. He needs wars.

rrpjr on November 3, 2011 at 11:33 AM

Either way, if the US is involved in any way, how is the US going to pay for it? Sleeper on November 3, 2011 at 11:04 AM

The rich will just have to pay their fair share of the war tax.

Akzed on November 3, 2011 at 11:34 AM

If all the munitions dropped on Libya had been dropped on Iran instead, would the American people be safer today?

fogw on November 3, 2011 at 11:35 AM

This is a standard Obama blocking move.

To hold up Israel’s real attack, Obama will talk on TOTUS about a Obama lead from behind attack and talk and talk.

Then he can threaten Israel to let him do it or he will stop them and shoot down the Israeli Airforce.

If Obama promises anything to help Israel, he is lying through his teeth.

jimw on November 3, 2011 at 11:26 AM

To block THIS

News2Use on November 3, 2011 at 11:35 AM

Diego Garcia, that means B-52′s, or at least it did years ago; that would be one big strike.

Bishop on November 3, 2011 at 10:50 AM

… and a LOT of aircraft carriers…

Khun Joe on November 3, 2011 at 11:36 AM

Gee, who was it that tried to tell us that the Iranians were throwing everything they had at developing nuclear warheads? George Bush.

That was the reason George gave for attacking Iraq. That they were building WMD. If he believed that about Iran, why didn’t he attack Iran?

keep the change on November 3, 2011 at 11:18 AM

Don’t forget, Bush’s intel on Iraq’s WMDs came from the previous (Democrat) Administration, and was just one of over a dozen reasons cited in the Resolution that the Democrats happily signed off on in the fall of 2002.

Del Dolemonte on November 3, 2011 at 11:37 AM

That was the reason George gave for attacking Iraq. That they were building WMD. If he believed that about Iran, why didn’t he attack Iran?

keep the change on November 3, 2011 at 11:18 AM

You’ll never get a good answer when you start with a false premise.

That was not the reason Bush gave for attacking Iraq. That was the reason the media kept putting in his mouth.

didymus on November 3, 2011 at 11:42 AM

They’re afraid of losing what’s left of the progressive base they’ve begun to assiduously court through Obama’s new class-warfare rhetoric.

At least until it’s too late for a primary challenge. After that, he can be as hawkish as he likes in hopes of winning some of the middle. The left will always hold their noses and pull the lever for him.

John Deaux on November 3, 2011 at 11:52 AM

That was the reason George gave for attacking Iraq. That they were building WMD.

keep the change on November 3, 2011 at 11:18 AM

It certainly was one the reasons Bill Clinton gave for a resolution calling for regime change.

What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he’ll use the arsenal…. President Clinton ~ 1998

rrpjr on November 3, 2011 at 11:53 AM

I wish I was as confident about Israel not planning a unilateral attack. Maybe I read too many Joel C Rosenberg novels.

vcferlita on November 3, 2011 at 11:57 AM

Anyone notice yet that Obama is pro Air Force. (spoken from an Airman)

shick on November 3, 2011 at 11:08 AM

So why hasn’t the Raptor program been revived?

MadisonConservative on November 3, 2011 at 12:04 PM

Are you sure Obama won’t attack Iran before the election? Seems to me he desperately needs an October Surprise.

RebeccaH on November 3, 2011 at 12:06 PM

Kokonut on November 3, 2011 at 10:56 AM

Yes, that as well. But he will do anything to keep his power. If he clearly cant, then things will get really ugly.

dogsoldier on November 3, 2011 at 12:09 PM

Israel has their own timetable.
With us or without us, Israel will bring it to the Iranians.

bloviator on November 3, 2011 at 12:27 PM

Israel has their own timetable.
With us or without us, Israel will bring it to the Iranians.

bloviator on November 3, 2011 at 12:27 PM

If she doesn’t choose the timing right she’ll also bring us 4 more of Obama. The muzzie world would love nothing better.

The Obamas would love nothing better.

Israel would lose all around.

Schadenfreude on November 3, 2011 at 12:35 PM

Are you sure Obama won’t attack Iran before the election? Seems to me he desperately needs an October Surprise.

RebeccaH on November 3, 2011 at 12:06 PM

Thinking person!

He’ll just move the troops from Iraq to Iran, send a few ‘candy’ and done. The left will declare him a genius. He’ll claim to have always had this in mind, having headfaked Iran, and the rest of the world with his inactions there…subject changed, re-election guaranteed.

People need to stay alert. This guy is guided by demons, but not for the U.S.

Schadenfreude on November 3, 2011 at 12:37 PM

Obama planning to attack Iran?
If at all, not before October, 2012!
ToddonCapeCod on November 3, 2011 at 11:27 AM

October or perhaps September, 2012. Obama will only attack Iran if he thinks it’s necessary to avoid defeat at the polls next November. I expect the bombing to take place after Labor Day.

Basilsbest on November 3, 2011 at 12:42 PM

LOL. When pigs fly . . . .

EconomicNeocon on November 3, 2011 at 10:53 AM

When pigs fly? Well, this is close. Only as matter of time.

coldwarrior on November 3, 2011 at 12:49 PM

PREDICTION:

TIME & DATE OF ATTACK:

May 20, 2012 – MIDNIGHT

reliapundit on November 3, 2011 at 12:52 PM

Obama attack as an “October 2012 surprise”?

How do we possibly “measure” the right wing voters that might GAIN POTUS versus the left wing peacenik votes it would likely alienate?

Katfish on November 3, 2011 at 1:02 PM

Late last night when the Israel headline first popped up, it gave me a chill. Now that you have also added the UK, and Obama, I’m calling it ‘Ministry of Information’ shenanigans.

Who in their right mind would believe that Israel, UK, and the US are going to start an overt war, World War III with Iran?

Next you will be telling me that Obama is withdrawing US forces from Iraq to get them out of reach of Iran’s irregular militia ground forces.

Skandia Recluse on November 3, 2011 at 1:21 PM

Out of Iraq and out of Afghanistan in about as quick a pulldown as humanly possible? Now whispers of Iran having the bomb?

Oh, please. Barack Obama is a Nobel Laureate…he would NEVER initiate a war….whats that? Libya? Never heard of it. And besides, this man is focused like a laser on creating jobs, closing gitmo and revamping our energy sector.

You people just say these things because he’s black.

KMC1 on November 3, 2011 at 1:38 PM

Remember, Obama will avoid at all costs putting boots on the ground and so will our allies. Here’s how I could see this playing out and possibly the start of WWIII.

(1) Air/Missile strikes against Iranian nuclear targets and possibly oil production facilities.

(2) A blockade by sea, land and air against Iran.

(3) Sympathy attacks by Arab nations against Israel and some retaliation by Iran.

(4) China unloads US bonds on world markets, causing economic crash in US and most of the world.

(5) Pakistan invades Afghanistan.

(6) China and Russia threaten to defy blockade.

(7) Cyber attacks disable much of US computer systems taking down much of the power grid, satellites, communications and further tanking the stock market.

(8) China bases aircraft and soldiers in Pakistan.

(9) China or Russia break blockade.

(10) BOOM!!!

Of course while this is happening we may see some other bad things happening like NK going nuts, the Chinese invading Taiwan and the collapse of the Mexican government by drug cartels. Of course this is all predicated on a weak military response to Iran and the inability of the US in getting it’s financial house in order, instead of a massive showing of overwhelming strength.

ReaganWasRight on November 3, 2011 at 1:48 PM

thanks to a new IAEA report that concludes — very much belatedly — that Tehran has been working all along to develop nuclear weapons:

Palpatine was the Sith all along!

juanito on November 3, 2011 at 1:58 PM

LOL. When pigs fly . . . .
EconomicNeocon on November 3, 2011 at 10:53 AM

When pigs fly? Well, this is close. Only as matter of time.
coldwarrior on November 3, 2011 at 12:49 PM

I like this one better.

listens2glenn on November 3, 2011 at 2:36 PM

I don’t think Obama has the nuts to do it.

Scrappy on November 3, 2011 at 2:39 PM

I think Obama attacks and not that I disagree. I do disagree with the reasoning, tho’. Oman is more concerned about creating distractions (and this would be a BIG one) from his failed policies, than he is about punishing Iran per se.

Progressives historically have liked such distractions and crises.

Talk about the quintessential war-like progressive president. Obama has US active in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, Yemen, and The Congo. And I doubt my list is complete.

Clearly his choices however (stated deadlines for withdrawal from both Iraq and Afghanistan) are militarily unsound in many ways as are his (our) recent involvements in Libya and Yemen.

Again sound military motives (in our best interest) clearly do not motivate Obama. Creating crises and the distractions he creates do.

Purely political reasons for Obama’s military forays.

In other words Obama will stop at nothing to get reelected but we have already seen this in his brazen unprecedented attacks on the rule of law and those of his fellow liberals.

Woodrow Wilson would no doubt agree with such policies.

Considered in this light, Obama is a very bloodthirsty fellow indeed.

I agree Iran nukes should be taken out now but not for the motivations I attribute to the Zero Man.

Sherman1864 on November 3, 2011 at 3:11 PM

I just keep remembering the epic fail when the first Carter Administration entered Iran.

PJ Emeritus on November 3, 2011 at 3:20 PM

Israel has their own timetable.
With us or without us, Israel will bring it to the Iranians.

bloviator on November 3, 2011 at 12:27 PM

BS. Dagan even went public calling Netanyahu’s plots against Iran ‘the stupidest idea I’ve ever heard’ He noted that all the security heads are doing their best to thwart Netanyahu’s attempts to start a war with Iran. It is a stupid idea and nothing would cement and entrench Iranian support for their nasty government like an attack from outside Iran. Evidence of that being the case… the Iran-Iraq war.

lexhamfox on November 3, 2011 at 5:45 PM

nothing would cement and entrench Iranian support for their nasty government like an attack from outside Iran. Evidence of that being the case… the Iran-Iraq war.

lexhamfox on November 3, 2011 at 5:45 PM

Yep, destroying Iran’s nuclear weapons program would be silly if it turns Iranian public opinion against us.

They might be so riled up that they deploy their destroyed nuclear weapons against us…oh, right.

And, as long as Iran’s apocalyptic leader is playing nice, what do we have to worry about? It’s not like there is a jihad on against the USA and Israel.

mockmook on November 3, 2011 at 6:11 PM

Attacking Iran would be a disaster. Hopefully Israel just keeps their cool and backs off.

SoulGlo on November 3, 2011 at 7:37 PM