On August 20th, the Israel Times reported that Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu “is determined to attack Iran before the US elections.” The report also said that Netanyahu was not waiting for a meeting with President Obama next month and that Obama could say little to convince him to delay a possible attack. Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak both believe Obama would have no choice but to support an Israeli attack before the US presidential elections in November.

So our supposed “ally” (we give them 7 million dollars a day) will try to give Americans “no choice” about going to war on the eve of an election. I hope Americans understand the gravity of this situation—and the cynicism behind it. As reported in “The Blaze” of August 20th, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey “had reiterated Sunday night his previously-stated position that an Israeli military strike will only delay Iran’s nuclear program, not totally destroy it…This also appears to be the opinion of Israeli officials…” The Israel Times report also noted that in Israel there is considerable opposition to an Israeli strike on Iran. President Shimon Peres, the army’s chief and top generals, the intelligence community, the opposition leader, and the Americans, are all lined up against Israeli action at this stage. Unfortunately, Netanyahu will make the final call. Apparently he is already making the case for war to his coalition allies.

The truth is, few experts believe an Israeli strike at Iran can succeed; they mostly believe it will make things worse, but they know how Iran will probably respond. Unable to directly hurt Israel strategically, Iran will probably strike at closer targets. That means that US troops in Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Afghanistan will become targets because of Netanyahu’s reckless act. Every oil tanker in the Persian Gulf will be at risk, causing a huge spike in oil prices when insurance rates go through the roof. The result may well be the collapse of the European economy. The US economic recovery (and your own job) may well go down with it.

Obama has been quite clear that an Israeli attack would definitely NOT be in the best interests of the US. Why would Netanyahu take such a huge gamble with his nation’s security, and the world economy? The answer is that he probably sees personal political gain in such an act. Team Romney recently signaled that Romney would “respect” an Israeli strike on Iran—even though that “green light” directly undercuts US policy and interests. Romney, too, sees personal political gain in an Israeli attack. I don’t think either one of them is worried about any hypothetical Iranian weapons that remain years away. They want to strike before the US elections because their real goal is to get rid of President Obama. (Of course, they also want to strike before the term of President Ahmedinejad expires in 2013, because a more moderate Iranian leader would be harder to attack.

Tipping the US election to Romney would be a bigger win for Netanyahu and his narrow coalition of rightwing settler parties than any slight delay in Iran’s nuclear program. They know Iran is still years away from any viable weapon—even if they decide to try to get one. But they also know that the neo-con advisers who dominate Romney’s foreign policy team will never talk about ending illegal Israeli settlements, or any other Netanyahu policies that make a peace settlement in Palestine impossible. The Netanyahu faction doesn’t really want peace; they want the existing status quo, where the talk is always about something other than peace in Palestine. That way, Netanyahu’s Zionist base, and the extreme settler parties that keep him in power, can keep taking more Palestinian land, water and oil. This is also why, over the years, right-wing Israelis have alternatively insisted that negotiations with Jordan, or Syria, or Egypt, etc., etc., etc. must precede talks direct peace talks with the Palestinians. Israelis have had a lot of practice at this particular bait and switch game. American politicians have fallen for it every time.

Netanyahu may well decide that creating an “October surprise” to help out Mitt Romney’s struggling campaign is a worthwhile investment—no matter how many innocents suffer for it. Either way, the GOP will blame Obama for not controlling Netanyahu, for not leading the attack, or for not supporting Israel. This will all be sheer hypocrisy. Support for Israel is something quite different from support for Netanyahu’s expansionist dreams. Even if Netanyahu does not make good on his constant threats that he will attack Iran (and I sincerely hope he doesn’t), his rhetoric so far, and the GOP’s embrace of it, already constitute a despicable effort to manipulate a critical foreign policy issue for partisan benefit. If Netanyahu does strike Iran, Romney and the GOP must take part of the blame.

As an American, I can’t think of anything worse for this country than another Middle East war, especially one that is not really about US security. If Netanyahu attacks Iran, it will only be about creating the conditions that allow a few thousand more Jewish settlers imported from Ethiopia, Argentina or Russia to take possession of more Palestinian land and homes—all so that a couple of cynical politicians can secure a place in office. And I can’t think of anything more fundamentally un-American than Romney’s complicity in egging Netanyahu on.

It is easy to forget that ill-advised military action can cause enormous unpredicted consequences. Hezbollah only exists on Israel’s borders today because of Israel’s misguided invasion of Lebanon in 1982. Hezbollah only became stronger after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006. One can only imagine what extreme forces might take form in the wake of an Israeli strike on Iran. I hope that AUPHR readers will see the crucial linkages between the Iranian issue, and the quest for peace in Palestine/Israel, and begin making these connections clear to their communities, to the press and to their representatives.

Gilbert Schramm

• Prev
• Next