Good article thanks Graham. I have long hoped that Obama would end the US' blanket support for Israel and it appears he is going this way.

Netanyahu is a dangerous man who risks plunging the Middle East into a bloody war.In any case it is his country that already has the nuclear weapons; what moral ground has he to attack the right of Iran to have nuclear energy. He is mad to think Iran would not retaliate if Israel destroyed its nuclear facilities.

The existing economic sanctions are the way to tackle this, not military strikes.

Finally, an article on OLO about the increasing tensions in the ME and between Israel and the US. Thanks Graham.

There is little doubt among observers that Netanyahu is (despite his claims to the contrary) – either deliberately or inadvertently – interfering with US politics and attempting to influence the outcome of the US election:

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/the-secret-reason-for-netanyahu-s-timing-on-iran-war.premium-1.461300

This is being reported by almost all media within and without Israel, and all are warning that Netanyahu is treading a very fine line. Not only is he beset by criticism within Israel, but also by pro-Israel lobbyists in the US who see his demands as undermining the US political process:

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2012/09/12/3106816/boxer-lashes-out-at-netanyahu-for-his-obama-attack

The US is not alone in cautioning against a unilateral attack by Israel either – over the past month, visits to Israel by French, German and British diplomats and leaders have all been made in an attempt to cool down Netanyahu.

Add to that, US election campaigns by Romney and Ryan highlighting what they perceive as weak US policy in the ME, and it is easy to see we are entering an extremely volatile time. It is all very well to speculate about post November 5, if Obama gets re-elected. There is, however, less rhetoric on the implications for the ME with a possible Romney win – something Netanyahu clearly prefers and one which presents greater danger to the region (and the world).

Dempsey’s comments in the UK about the US not wanting to be ‘complicit’ in an Israeli attack on Iran, was Netanyahu’s first sure sign that he and Obama were following very different timelines. That difference has widened since, although there are signs that Netanyahu is starting to show some restraint in his rhetoric.

Perhaps he will be buoyed by this:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57513809/ex-ambassador-to-israel-u.s-will-go-to-war-with-iran-in-2013/

But I suspect that, for Netanyahu, 2013 cannot come quickly enough.

It won't be an attack from Iran that the U.S. will have to worry about. The reaction from the militant Muslims around the world, to the recent anti Mohamed video will pale into significance when they take to the streets to destroy American property and lives. Netanyahu is a very dangerous man.

David

Don't worry VK3AUU, these Muslim curs only attack when in vastly superior numbers, or when the opposition is women & children. Boy aren't they brave then.

The sooner they try street insurrection in the US , the sooner the whole pack of them world wide can be declared illegal.

If they try it here, next time the cops will have to take it to them, not those trying to defend their home area.

They will find the Oz public, once roused, a damn site tougher than our pollies & judiciary. One could even say, may their god help them if they do, cos they will be in more trouble than the average cur can handle.

These recent articles on internet:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/iran-close-to-bomb-israeli-pm-netanyahu-warns-us/article4548553/

“Having been rebuffed privately by President Barack Obama last week, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel took to the airwaves in the United States on Sunday to warn that Iran was only six or seven months from having “90 per cent” of what it needed to make an atomic bomb.
Mr. Netanyahu received sharp criticism at home and abroad for similar remarks last week, which were widely seen as an effort to put pressure on Obama to act more forcefully against Iran. And yet, less than two months before Election Day, he turned to the weekly platform for U.S. politics – the Sunday morning political talk shows – to make his case more urgently and specifically than ever to a wider U.S. audience. …” [cont in above link]

And this:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/2012/09/16/israeli-makes-takes-case-iran-voters/LgplIhE8jcObpObPXaDNtJ/story.html

FILE - In this Sept. 11, 2012, photo, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during a joint press conference with his Bulgarian counterpart Boyko Borissov, not seen, in Jerusalem. Netanyahu is making a direct appeal to U.S. voters to elect a president willing to draw a "red line" with Iran. Netanyahu on Sunday, Sept. 16, 2012, used this week's focus on unrest across the Muslim world to warn Americans watching two Sunday talk shows that time is running out to confront Tehran on its nuclear program. It was an impassioned election-season plea for a world leader who insists he doesn't want to insert himself into U.S. politics.

“His remarks were an impassioned election-season plea from a world leader who insists he doesn’t want to insert himself into U.S. politics and hasn’t endorsed either candidate.

… Obama’s Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, has said he is willing to take a tougher stance than Obama against Iran, although his campaign has declined to provide specifics. He has also aligned himself personally with Netanyahu, casting the Israeli leader as a longtime friend.” … [cont in link to article]

Indeed a real tinder box. The Israel PM does appear to be agressive, very aggressive. The mere thought and probability of a nuclear war in the Middle East, is just too horrible to contemplate.

But while these two agressive protagonists continue to rattle swords, heaven knows what would happen if it escalates further, than just mere posturing. The US leadership with Mr Obama at it's helm is probably just as weak as we appear to be, here in Oz.

Somebody commenting herein, apropos the events in Sydney last Saturday, suggested if these radical muslim groups continue to threaten, and intimidate the ordinary bloke in the street, they may well bite off a little more than they can chew ?

That may well be true, history has taught me, that when the average Aussie is pushed too hard, they may well bite, and bite hard. Not so our politician's, it would seem ?

So, if these bearded, shaved head creeps, wish to continue with their bizarre activities, even the law can't/won't necessarily protect them.

It must therefore give us all some pause to reflect, just what would happen, if either Israel or Iran, pushes each other too far ? If a nuclear war were to occur. Then, it's my belief the entire world would be implicated. With so many pacts, and treaties, all of which would drag other nuclear nations into the (explosive) mess.

And in so doing, ensure the total annihilation and destruction of mankind, in toto.

Dear Graham,

Timely article thank you.

I found both the Democratic and Republican conventions quite interesting on the question of Israel.

The Democrats or more specifically Obama was forced into a rather ludicrious rewrite of the party platform to include the position that Jerusalem was the capital of Israel. The reaction of dissent from the convention floor was very telling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoPrBnrWvrE

Of course Bush had promised to relocate the US embassy to Jerusalem but once in office declined to do so. All theatre really.

However the even Republican rhetoric has dialled back from their 2008 position that “We support Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel and moving the American embassy to that undivided capital of Israel.” to “Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state with secure, defensible borders; and we envision two democratic states -- Israel with Jerusalem as its capital and Palestine -- living in peace and security.”

It may well be that both sides are adopting more measured positions, a welcome move if true.

Dear Hasbeen,

I hear there is a bridge opening in Sydney you might want to attend. Full dress uniform and bring horse and sabre.

Judging from the news reports, there is actually one side which is pushing for a showdown in the ME and that is Israel. The Iranians are merely trying to establish a nuclear facility which may, repeat may, be used to produce nuclear weapons. At no time have they suggested that they will attack Israel with nuclear weapons. That is just rhetoric from the far right in Israel and their friends in the United States.

David

It is comforting to see that rational people are encouraged that Israel's colony and piggy-bank the USA, in the form of its head of state President Obama, is actually thinking for itself for once.
I forgot to check Graham Cooke's article to find out what financial support Israel was offering in its sponsorship of the recession-troubled USA- maybe bodybags- for the grisly task of obliterating Iran to assuage Israel's perpetual night-terrors concerning its neighbours, who, with the exception of middle-power Iran, have already been bombed back to the Stone Age.

Further confirmation of what is already known:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/netanyahu-eying-victory-for-israel-in-us-election/article4550389/?cmpid=rss1

and one of the more concise summaries of events to date:

http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/142108/will-israel-drag-the-us-into-a-war-with-iran.html

I suspect Obama is struggling up hill at this point. Let's hope the ground flattens out soon. I hate to think of what will happen in the ME if Netanyahu gets his way.

I would hate to think what the result would be if anything serious were to happen with this gas bag fool in charge of the US.

While he has definitely proved to be an expert at paying off his cronies with grants & loan guarantees of taxpayer funds, he has yet to actually do anything worth while, or effective.

Thanks everyone for your comments and thanks especially for the links.

There are signs even within the Israeli Cabinet that the PM is going too far with his anti-Iran rhetoric. I also have some sympathy with the view that Iran, while playing to the international gallery, might actually have no greater intention than a domestic peaceful nuclear program.

After all, that means it could sell more oil to the West and be better prepared when the oil wells finally run dry.

Mr Cooke,

Agreed, but oil sales aside, there is also the nagging concern – not as pressing as the looming US election – of elections next year in both Iran (June) and Israel (October). While Ahmadinejad has little choice but to step down, he may yet have a last card to play, and Netanyahu has never been one to go quietly.

Whether this year or next, we are in for a very bumpy ride.

http://www.jewishjournal.com/israel/article/netanyahu_its_not_about_elections_in_america_but_centrifuges_in_iran

http://www.jacksonsun.com/usatoday/article/57807906?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cs

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/world/middleeast/iran-elections-deal-blow-to-ahmadinejad-and-the-presidency.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.www