So, in full non-compliance against the Peace Process Agreement, and most likely with the complicity of the Obama administration, the Egyptian Army entered the Sinai last month with armoured vehicles and tanks, in effect, doing what they wanted: a pretext to go back into the Sinai ostensibly to thwart the growing resort of Jihad heaven, refugee murder and rape, organ harvesting and other atrocities that can somehow be blamed on Israel.
And beyond the ever friendly confines of Syria, that country of brotherly love, lies Iran. As time goes by, to use the famous Gerschwin song, its becoming obvious that there are Democratic party linkages and connections to Iran and Obama really will never attack Iran, and seems resigned to allowing it to have a nuclear weapon. Which means, Israel must make its own decision and do what’s beneficial for Israel’s security as opposed to Obama who in term II could make Israel’s life very choppy by catering to the Left and the moral BS code. Obama already said to AIPAC, “Already, there is too much loose talk of war,” …Now is the time to let our increased pressure sink in and to sustain the broad international coalition we have built.” Maybe the swing deal is to de-fang Israel’s reactor in exchange for Iran and give this plum to his electoral base.
Obviously a strike is difficult, but not impossible. Destabilizing? It doesn’t take much in that region, but the threat of nuclear capability in Iran is becoming Obama’s cross to bear and an attack could either make or break his election, an election that seems tighter and less predictable than it did a year ago and secondly, Obama who has always been disliked in Israel, going way back to the ’08 primaries, is not viewed as a friend in the crunch.
(see link at end) …Washington – In remarks seemingly aimed at Israel, the United States said Friday it had “eyes” and “visibility” inside Iran’s nuclear program and would know if Tehran made a “breakout” towards a nuclear weapon.
Washington also indicated it had not changed its view that Iran was not yet on the verge of building a nuclear bomb, despite Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s statement that US intelligence now viewed the threat as more “urgent.” …
…But many experts believe there has also been substantial infiltration and sabotage of Iran’s nuclear program by Western and Israeli intelligence agencies.
Though the Obama Administration has not taken the military option off the table, Carney said “there is time and space to pursue the
diplomatic option that includes extremely and increasingly aggressive sanctions.”
Carney’s comments appeared to be an indirect repudiation of Barak’s comment on Public Radio that it was getting tougher to assess Iran’s nuclear progress….
…”Barak is advocating for action and the defense establishment is investing billions to prepare for an Israeli military operation,” an official close to the issue told Ynet.But a cabinet minister questioned Barak’s decisiveness on the matter.
“You can never know what Barak is thinking,” he said. “On one hand, he is creating an alibi in the form of the army’s opposition (to a strike), and on the other hand he is coming off as someone who is pushing for action. No one knows what he will decide in the moment of truth. We just don’t know….“Barak is smarter than many of the decision makers, which is why he is playing this double game.” Government sources also suggested that the US is using the media to turn the Israeli public against such an attack.
“There is no doubt that the Americans are playing the Israeli media,” one source said. “They are very concerned about an Israeli operation ahead of the elections. This is clearly a poker game. Let’s see who will blink first. Israel wants everyone to be on edge.”
State officials noted that despite its apparent wariness towards the military option, the US continues to deploy forces – including aircraft carriers and minesweepers – to the Persian Gulf.
“They are quietly signaling that Washington is serious in its intention to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear power,” one source said.
But a former White House adviser for Middle East affairs said that President Barack Obama may be ready to accept a nulcear Iran.
Bruce Reidel, a former CIA official and senior adviser to three US presidents – including George W. Bush – told Ynet on Friday that Israel’s prime opportunity to strike Iran is coming up in October – only weeks before the presidential elections take place in the US.
If Obama is reelected in November, it would be much more difficult to convince him that a strike is the best course of action. In fact, Reidel postulated that a second Obama Administration could opt to adopt a policy of “containment,” or in other words make peace with the possibility that Iran will obtain nuclear power.
An October strike is Obama’s “worst nightmare,” Reidel said, anticipating that top US officials will travel to Israel prior to the elections in an attempt to dissuade its leaders from launching a strike and to buy time for the incumbent president, who may not be ready to employ the military option in the next six months, if at all. Read More:http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4267064,00.html
Russia and China are of course the wild-cards. They might want Israel to dismantle its nuclear program in exchange for an Iran meltdown. … The Obama team seems capable of getting warm and cuddly with this idea, the shining peacemaker credentials, maybe another Nobel for the Obama fireplace mantle, and a rubdown of the yids who don’t want him elected, a savior to the Arab world. Anything is possible. So it is possible that attacking Iran over U.S objections could endanger Israel’s nuclear weapons arsenal, and what has really been the value of that “insurance policy” over the years. …
(see link at end) Michael Widlanski:During this testing period, Obama will listen to his “inner voice,” his closest advisor, Valerie Jarrett, who speaks Farsi and was born in Iran.
Jarrett has also been Obama’s emissary to U.S. Muslims, many of them rich Iranian donors. The day after the Iranian-aided terror attack on Israelis in Bulgaria, the White House hosted a day-long conclave with Iranian-Americans, including the leader of the National Iranian-American Council (NIAC), who said Israel invited the terror attack in order to have an excuse to attack Iran. Ms. Jarrett was featured at the event.
Later, perhaps coincidentally, The New York Times reported that a senior Obama official said the Iranian terror attack was “in retaliation for the assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists, for which Iran has blamed Israeli agents.” The Times report again quoted the senior Obama official saying, “This was tit for tat.”
In other words, the day after an Iranian terror attack, the White House hosted pro-Iranian groups, and a senior U.S. official adopted the Iranian narrative: “tit for tat.” (widlanski) Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/obamas_body_count.html#ixzz23Cr8xyzM