It is surely the case that when President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu meet at the White House on March 5th, the timing of a potential Israeli attack on Iran will be on the agenda. Another topic of discussion -- whether purposeful or inadvertent -- is likely to be how such an attack would influence, or be influenced by, the upcoming Israeli and U.S. elections.
In December, Mr. Netanyahu announced early primary elections, which some political observers saw as political opportunism, but others saw as a the ability for the Prime Minister to consolidate his power and reaffirm his political stance in advance of an expected call for an early general election late in 2012 -- presumably, near the time of the U.S. presidential election in November. If so, the two country's electoral cycles would be on a parallel track, which may be a precursor to determining the timing of an Israeli and/or U.S. attack on Iran. The question is, would it occur before or after the elections?
Nothing tends to rally voters around the flag -- and incumbent politicians -- like a war. Israel's leadership is certainly mindful of Israeli public opinion, which is evenly split about the wisdom of attacking Iran and fears of a more localized conflict with Hamas and Hezbollah should an attack occur. Even given the disparity of opinion, there are reasons for the Israeli leadership to wish to carry out an attack prior to elections, since as many Israelis support an attack as oppose it, and Mr. Netanyahu enjoys a comparatively strong political position.
But there is another important reason in favor of an attack prior to Israeli elections. The conclusions of the Winograd Commission -- an Israeli government-appointed body charged with identifying what went wrong during Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 2006 -- showed that Israel cannot survive unless all the people of the region believe that Israel has the leadership, military capabilities, and social robustness to allow it to deter those of its neighbors who wish to harm her. The Commission said that Israel should seek peace with its neighbors and make necessary compromises to ensure its survival, but this must be done from a position of social, political and military strength. Apart from the potential existential threat posed by an Iranian nuclear strike on Israel, on the basis of the Commission's conclusions, Israel has little choice but to attack Iran in order to demonstrate it is strong in the face of extreme adversity.
Although the U.S. populace is war weary, after nearly a decade of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, the results of the recent Pew Research Center poll on the views of the American electorate on this subject are revealing. According to the Pew survey from February 12, 2012, 58% of the 1,500 people surveyed said it is more important to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons -- even if it means the need to take military action against Iran -- with the support of 50% of Independent voters, 55% of Democrats, and 74% of Republicans. 64% of Americans do not think economic sanctions will be effective against Iran. Half those polled believe the U.S. should stay neutral if Israel were to bomb Iran, with 39% saying the U.S. should support Israel.
Our guess is that if Israel were to bomb Iran, in the end, the majority of the Israeli population would support such a decision, and the U.S. population would end up supporting a U.S. decision to support Israel. A 2006 Pew study notes that throughout history, in Middle Eastern conflicts, the U.S. population has steadfastly supported Israel. And a 2010 Gallup poll of more than 1,000 adults found support for Israel versus the Palestinians among the U.S. populace was at 63% -- the highest it had been since 1991, when Israel was bombarded by Scud missiles from Iraq.
The Israeli population knows what needs to be done in order to secure Israel's security in the long-term, and Mr. Netanyahu knows that in the face of extreme adversity, Israelis rally around their leaders, but may demand answers later. Similarly, Mr. Obama knows that there has never been a question about whether the American people will in the end support military operations that ensure the survival of Israel. Electoral politics may indeed influence the course of events between Israel, Iran and the U.S. in the coming months, but in the end, Israelis and Americans will do what they have always done -- support Israel in the face of adversity.
*Daniel Wagner is CEO of Country Risk Solutions - a cross-border risk management firm based in Connecticut (USA) - Director of Global Strategy with the PRS Group, and author of the new book Managing Country Risk. Alexios Giannoulis is a research analyst with CRS.
Follow Daniel Wagner on Twitter: www.twitter.com/countryriskmgmt
As someone who didn't really want to go into Iraq and saw the consequences, I don't want to do this. Everything here reminds me of the exact same crap we heard 8 years ago when we were entering Iraq. If we start a war, it's going to be the same thing except that weirdly, there may be more countries to stick up for Iran and be against us.
As an American Jew, this is frustrating. I don't want Israel to go to war and I don't think it will end well. I want to support their decisions, but the longer Netanyahu stays in power, the less I can support their government and their policies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjUFKgRnHSU
A document recently published by the chief strategist of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Alireza Forghani, argued that "in the name of Allah, Iran must attack Israel by 2014.
Khamenei and especially Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have repeatedly referred to Israel as a cancer that must be removed from the Middle East.
"...Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said an Israeli attack would be "destabilizing," and former CIA DirectorMichael V. Hayden called it "beyond the capacity" of Israel to launch an attack that would seriously set Iran back.
What's more, Iran's response to such an attack could disrupt global oil shipments, unleash Hamas and Hezbollah against Israel and threaten U.S. interests worldwide.
Dempsey said recently that in the view of U.S. intelligence, the Iranian regime "has not decided" whether to make a nuclear weapon. If so, there is time for measures short of military action to deflect Iran from that choice. There are also signs that sanctions are beginning to pinch. Iran has indicated a willingness to resume talks with the United States and other great powers. Abandoning such initiatives in favor of precipitous military action might be good Republican politics, but it would be disastrous policy."
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-iran-20120224,0,6780170.story
NO MORE WAR............Period.
If your darling Israel wants war then let them do it ALONE.
Senior US officials say Israel does not dispute the basic intelligence or analysis.
The dispute then is over the critical level that would signal a strike. Israel regards Iran as a threat to its existence and says it will not allow Iran to become capable of building and delivering a nuclear weapon. Some Israeli officials have raised the prospect of a military strike to stop Iran before it's too late. Meanwhile, American officials warn that a strike is too dangerous
Sad thing is, if the U.S. attacks Iran, it will be to protect Saudi Arabia, which because of oil is far more important to our economic good health. The Persian gulf states long for Israel to hit Iran. It's win-win for them, because their blood enemy Iran will be wounded and Israel will be blamed by a hostile world.
Besides the very real risk of Iran's defences (coupled with the long flight to the targets) holding the line against the attack (something that would destroy that reputation of strength Israel so wants in the region, and also their reputation as a winner that allows them to remain so unassailable in US public opinion), there is the risk of Iran turning captured Israeli pilots over to the Hague for trial (another disaster for the Israeli hold on US public opinion) and the almost certainty that the move to make Israel's uninspected, unregulated, nuclear weapons program the issue at the UN and IAEA will become a constant 194 to 2 situation, and start spilling over into other parts of US foreign relations.
Who says Americans should always have to support Israelis ?