|
File photo shows US President Barack Obama (R) as he welcomes Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel in the Oval Office. |
New York New York: The term
"October Surprise" is one that always triggers speculation in political
circles.
It refers to some covert
initiative that a candidate takes in the month before the election to try to
win it.
Even as President Obama seems
to lead in the polls, and the lead is slipping, the political race faces a
number of unknowns, including whether and how Israel may intervene more actively
to force its political agenda on our political agenda.
According to Consortium News,
this has happened before in an earlier US election.
" 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.
According to Parry, who worked for the Associated
Press at the time:
"There is doubt in some quarters that Israel's Likud
government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would time an attack on Iran in
the weeks before a U.S. election with the goal of dooming the incumbent
Democratic president, Barack Obama, or forcing his hand to commit American
military might in support of Israel.
But there was a precedent 32 years ago when another
Likud government had grown alienated from the Democratic president and found
itself in a position where it could help drive him from office by covertly
assisting his Republican rivals in another crisis involving Iran."
Some supporters of Obama think this scenario might
even prove helpful to the President, however much he may personally detest
Israel's Bibi Netanyahu.
Should the US appear to be threatened or at
risk, he might win support because he is, after all, the Commander in
Chief. Some tough appearing moves
involving US military forces might be to his advantage. The truth is he has been
unsuccessful in "fixing" the economy, that is, if a President even has that
power.
The naval armada now steaming towards The Strait of
Hormuz and Iran may be a maneuver to be seen in this framework.
London's Telegraph reports:
"Battleships, aircraft carriers, minesweepers and submarines from 25 nations
are converging on the strategically important Strait of Hormuz in an
unprecedented show of force as Israel and Iran move towards the brink of war.
Western leaders are
convinced that Iran will retaliate to any attack by attempting to mine or
blockade the shipping lane through which passes around 18 million barrels of
oil every day, approximately 35 per cent of the world's petroleum traded by
sea"
In preparation for any pre-emptive or retaliatory
action by Iran, warships from more than 25 countries, including the United
States, Britain, France, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, will today begin an annual
12-day exercise."
On the other hand, these naval maneuvers may be
designed to provoke attack so that the US/UK can justify "retaliatory" actions.
Iran is said to be preparing its own major maneuvers
to show its ability to defend itself and its nuclear program.
Meanwhile, the Telegraph
also reports, "the main naval exercise comes as President Barack Obama is
scheduled to meet Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, today to
discuss the Iranian crisis.
Many within the Obama
administration believe that Israel will launch a pre-emptive strike against
Iran's nuclear facilities before the US presidential elections, an act which
would signal the failure of one of Washington's key foreign policy objectives.
Both Downing Street and Washington hope that the show
of force will demonstrate to Iran that NATO and the West will not allow
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian leader, to develop a nuclear armory
or close Hormuz."
The problem with exercises on this scale is that they
are prone to errors, collisions or predictable incidents that could trigger an
actual war. The people engineering this may be hoping for just such a
confrontation knowing that Western military power is superior.
A massive British presence couldn't have happened
without US backing, even as Israel and the US go through the motions of a noisy
political spat.
At the same time, the rift between Israel and
Washington could be calculated to keep all sides guessing.
Writes Stephen Lendman
on OpEdNews: "Much has been made about an Obama/Netanyahu rift. At times, it's
hard separating rhetoric from reality. Nonetheless, neither leader, it appears,
particularly likes the other. Disagreement between them is palpable. It's over
Iranian red lines and deadlines.
Former IDF Chief of
Staff Dan Halutz said he doesn't believe in "red line policies."
Lendman faults
Netanyahu, writing, "He's arrogant, offensive, duplicitous, thuggish, and
dangerous. He's an embarrassment to legitimate governance. It's hard imagining
why any Israelis put up with him. If ever a bum deserved to be thrown out it's
Netanyahu.
One Israeli analyst said he "must set red lines
on his malice toward Obama." Israelis and many others are fed up with his
bluster. He's gone out of his way to alienate support from his closest ally. An
unnamed Israeli official said he caused "profound" damage in
relations with Washington."
But what if all of this is for show, a way Israel can
appease its hard-line right wing, pacify Republicans and allow Obama to appear
reasonable with his core supporters before both countries map out a joint strategy?
They do share a world view however much they may seem
to disagree on tactics and timing. Even as Obama and Netanyahu hiss at each
other, Israel's Ambassador to the US is doing "damage control" by kissing up to
everyone on the hill and having a Rosh Hashanah dinner with Joe Biden. The two
countries are still aligned even if their leaders don't seem to be!
Israel is too dependent on US military support to risk
turning a long-term ally/cash cow into an enemy.
Obama cannot afford to alienate voters for whom Israel
is a key issue.
In a sense, both need each other. Obama may need a
conflict to win over independents. He already has his "liberal" base,
people who are terrified of Republicans and right-wing extremism. Now he is
really after so-called independents and even Republicans who support hard-line
military policies like the showy liquidation of bin Laden and the ongoing drone
wars. Obama may talk left but he walks right.
Both sides talk out of all sides of their mouths with
their domestic political calculations far more important than any dangers to
world peace. They see Iran as a symbolic issue, not necessarily a real threat.
Even Israel calls it an "existential threat," whatever that is.
Fear of Iran keeps Netanyahu in power. An "Iranian menace" is useful to Obama
too. Don't underestimate the games politicians play.
If you want truth, look elsewhere.
News Dissector Danny Schechter blogs at NewsDissector.net.
His latest books are Occupy: Dissecting Occupy Wall Street and Blogothon
(Cosimo Books.) He hosts a show on Progressive Radio Network.com. Parts of this
Article first appeared on PressTV.
Source: Presstv.ir