3 thoughts on “Yediot’s Alex Fishman: U.S. ‘Very Afraid’ of Israeli Attack on Iran – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. Fishman’s analysis doesn’t sound right. Inside the United States, within the Obama administration itself, there seems to be a concerted effort to “warm up” the American public to the idea of a war with Iran. We are receiving the FOX News equivalent of meat tenderizer every day. Holder and Clinton announce a bizarre assassination scheme and provide no evidence. Obama sells bunker busters to Israel. Obama announces plans to move troops in Iraq to Kuwait, not return to the United States. Something’s going to happen early next year. If Fishman confuses the shivering for U.S. trembling, he’s wrong. They’re shivering out of excitement and impatience to launch another war.

  2. The only Western forces readily available to Iranian retaliation for an Israeli strike, are American and mostly in Doha. (Assuming that Iranian leaders can see the profound wisdom in not striking at Americans on Turkish soil.)

    This may cause the US President to take a very different line to that being cheer-led byAIPAC-controlled hangers-on in his baggage train who present themselves as part of “The Administration.”

    The fact that the Israeli lobby has dominated American politics for several decades, does not mean that America won’t become anti-Israeli overnight if it’s Americans coming home in body bags whilst Israel successfully uses Syria and the Gulf states as a shield to hide behind as it lobs spears at Iran.

    Iran, meanwhile, is experiencing what amounts to a three way power struggle, between Supreme Leader, President and People. Three body problems are too complicated to solve: there is no way that Israeli intelligence can predict the outcome of any interference, which is probably why they are no longer enthusiasts for a strike.

    They cannot even say with certainty who, in Iran’s parallel power structures, will end up with control over the response. So they cannot predict the response.

    They need to wait until it’s at least down to two sides in Iran before they do anything, and at that point they may find they do not have to do anything.

  3. In re the IAEA report: actually there is no need for the pro-attack forces to know the contents of the forthcoming report. The style of the reports is very consistent, and no matter how dismissive they are Iran’s capacity, they are always scrupulous to say “we cannot rule out X” until they get full disclosure of all prior documentation. This was true even under el-Baradei. Every time the report came out, most of the MSM accepted a pro-attack spin that highlighted that paragraph and ignored the rest. IIRC, there has never been an IAEA report since 2003 that didn’t increase the clamor for war with Iran when it came out based on this fail safe technique. The long explanations showing that the real drift of the report was the opposite never get much play. And since Iran has now stockpiled enough mildly enriched uranium to theoretically make a bomb if it was all re-enriched — which not that many years ago was widely called the red line — there are now twice as many paragraphs they can make into battle horn soundbites.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link