Special Report: A pressing foreign policy question of the U.S. presidential race is whether Israel might exploit this politically delicate time to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites and force President Obama to join the attack or face defeat at the polls, a predicament with similarities to one President Carter faced in 1980, writes Robert Parry.
For decades, the debate about Israeli security has been far more robust in Israel than in the United States. The same holds true today as Israeli opposition leader Shaul Mofaz challenges the government’s bellicose rhetoric on Iran while U.S. politicians and pundits pander or stay silent, notes ex-CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar.
Israel’s latest saber-rattling over Iran’s nuclear program may be a pre-election strategy to coerce President Obama into a firm commitment that, if he’s re-elected and if Iran doesn’t destroy its own nuclear “capability,” he will authorize a U.S. military strike next year, writes Gareth Porter for Inter Press Service.
Exclusive: As the clock ticks down to the U.S. elections in November, another clock is ticking in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, whether Israeli forces should exploit the American political timetable to pressure President Obama to support an attack on Iran’s nuclear sites, writes ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern.
As Iran becomes a political football in Campaign 2012 – with President Obama and Mitt Romney competing to kick it the hardest and farthest – there is talk about Iran’s failure to meet its “international obligations” but little thought about what that means, notes Danny Schechter.
With U.S. politics locked in a competitive “tough-guy-ism” – as Republicans and Democrats up the ante on punishing Iran to avoid being deemed “weak” or insufficiently “pro-Israel” – no one seems to notice that the tactics are fast becoming an end in themselves, observes ex-CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar.
The charge “anti-Semitism” is thrown around loosely by defenders of Israel as a way to discredit legitimate criticism – and sometimes even the expression of inconvenient facts – as happened recently regarding a map showing the steady erosion of Palestinian land, writes Lawrence Davidson.
Toeing the neocon line, Mitt Romney denounced Iran as the world’s “most destabilizing nation” despite polls in the Middle East putting Israel and the United States at the top of that list, as Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett note at www.RaceForIran.com.
Exclusive: A favorite neocon theme is that the superiority of Western culture explains the world’s wealth disparities, not the accident of natural resources and the aggressive use of military force. Mitt Romney echoed those neocon sentiments in touting Israel and disparaging the Palestinians, reports Robert Parry.
Republican Mitt Romney pandered to a right-wing pro-Israeli audience by claiming Israel’s economic success, relative to the widespread poverty in Palestine, reflected superior cultural values and possibly divine preference, a statement that ignored the impact of the longtime occupation, says ex-CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar.