Is Madman Obama Going To Bomb Iran?

A flurry of propaganda has surfaced over the past 48 hours, indicating that, in the aftermath of the Obama-Netanyahu White House love-fest last week, the Obama Administration is seriously considering military action against Iran. If it were simply a matter of media black propaganda, the threat would be limited, at best, given U.S. military resistance to another Persian Gulf war. But, given the fact that the President is stark-raving mad, and given that several extremely well-informed Washington sources have confirmed a renewed consideration of an attack on Iran, coming directly from the White House, the matter has to be taken very seriously.

On July 15, Time magazine prominently featured a story by Joe Klein, headlined "An Attack on Iran: Back on the Table," in which it was reported that the Pentagon, for the first time, considers military action against Iran's nuclear program to be both feasible and possibly necessary. "Intelligence sources say that the U.S. Army's Central Command, which is in charge of organizing military operations in the Middle East, has made some real progress in planning targeted air strikes—aided, in large part, by vastly improved human-intelligence operations in the region," Klein wrote. He quoted an Israeli military source telling him, "There really wasn't a military option a year ago. But they've gotten serious about the planning and the option is now real." The source reported that the Israeli military has been consulted on the war planning, because the Obama Administration does not want Israel to act on its own, in attacking Iran. Klein added, "One other factor has brought the military option to a low boil: Iran's Sunni neighbors really want the U.S. to do it... Senior American officials who travel to the Gulf frequently say the Saudis, in particular, raise the issue with surprising ardor." Klein claimed that "For the moment, the White House remains as skeptical as ever about a military strike," but that, according to senior U.S. intelligence sources and one top Democrat, is no longer true. Reportedly, President Obama is personally talking about an attack on Iran, and views it as a potential boost for his 2012 reelection plans.

On July 15, the same day that the Klein story was posted, Spiegel Online published a very similar story under the headline "A Quiet Axis Forms Against Iran in the Middle East," by Alexander Smoltczyk and Bernhard Zand. They cited a strong push from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, for an attack by the United States on Iran, regardless of the blowback. Spiegel noted the recent speech by UAE's Ambassador to the United States, Yousef Al Otaiba, at an Aspen, Colorado forum, in which he aggressively promoted American military action to knock out Iran's nuclear capabilities. "A military attack on Iran by whomever would be a disaster," the ambassador said, "but Iran with a nuclear weapon would be a bigger disaster." While acknowledging that there would undoubtedly be a severe "backlash," "If you ask me, 'Am I willing to live with that versus living with a nuclear Iran,' my answer is still the same. We cannot live with a nuclear Iran. I am willing to absorb that [it] takes place at the expense of the security of the U.A.E."

Even Arnaud de Borchgrave, who, in recent years, has been a harsh critic of the Bush-Cheney preventive wars, and an opponent of military strikes on Iran, wrote on July 13 that "Global Sentiment Builds to Attack Iran." Citing the same Saudi and UAE statements that were reported by Time and Spiegel Online, de Borchgrave concluded: "The temptation for Obama to double down on Iran will grow rapidly as he concludes that Afghanistan will remain a festering sore as far as anyone can peer into a murky future, hardly a recipe for success at the polls in November. With a war in Afghanistan that is bound to get worse and a military theater in Iraq replete with sectarian violence, the bombing of Iran may give Obama a three-front war and a chance to retain both houses of Congress."