The Name Of The Iran Game Is Still Strategic Ambiguity

By Steve Hynd

There's a story in the London Times today which says the Saudis have secretly okayed any overflight of their territory involved in an Israeli attack on Iran. The rightwing nuts for whom any day is a good day to bomb Iranians love it.

But since one of the Times' reporters is serial fabulist Uzi Mahnaimi, the other is neocon shill for war with Iran Sarah Baxter, and the only sources for the tale are anonymous, you can probably chalk it off to a continued propaganda effort which has now spanned successive U.S. and Israeli administrations. 

The aim has always been to create "strategic ambiguity" - deliberately muddying the waters about Israeli and American intentions so as to pressure Iran in its negotiations with the West by ensuring it fears an attack if it doesn't play ball. D.C. hawks have gotten on board to such an extent that it is already an accepted fact among the Very Serious Person set that Obama's idea of negotiation without preconditions will get exactly one shot, will fail, and then the bombs will begin to fall. That's why they're so keen on using Iran's election as an excuse to derail those efforts - they're sure they'll never restart and thus they will be proven correct. Self fulfilling prophecy!

And Joe Biden gets to play too:

Vice President Joe Biden seemed to give Israel a green light for military action to eliminate Iran's nuclear threat, saying the U.S. "cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do."

..."Israel can determine for itself -- it's a sovereign nation -- what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else," Biden told ABC's "This Week" in an interview broadcast Sunday.

"Whether we agree or not. They're entitled to do that. Any sovereign nation is entitled to do that. But there is no pressure from any nation that's going to alter our behavior as to how to proceed," Biden said.

Video from Crooks and Liars here.

Everybody, from Obama on down, is ignoring as hard as they can the opinion of successive heads of the IAEA - el Baradei and now Yukiya Amano - that Iran has no nuclear weapons program. It doesn't fit the domestic narrative, which is all about hanging tough to gain votes. As usual, foreign policy is domestic gamesplaying inflicted upon foreigners. But then again, that's true of Iran's leaders too.

Comments

[SRW1]

And the beneficiary of a bombing run by the Israeli's will be ..., the regime in Tehran.
1. Because that will bury any interal opposition for at least a decade, if not two.
2. Because that will validate the argument that the only thing to prevent Israel from undertaking this kind of action again will be for Iran to actually have the bomb.

Oh, and look for a renaissance of IED attacks targeting US military personnel in Irak.

[Steve Hynd]

"look for a renaissance of IED attacks targeting US military personnel in Irak."

Why? They're mostly not coming from Iran.

Regards, Steve

[Kat]

You're welcome. ;-)

[colindale]

A U.S decision to allow its proxy to attack Iran could well prove to be the start of WWIII and the worst foreign policy error of the 21st century. Once those ICBMs are fired from Israel, with or without nuclear warheads, then, arguably, everyone living today will suffer the consequences.

From Alaska to Mexico and from London to Oman and Karachi – the world will have years to reflect on our stupidity and the arrogance of our elected representatives.

[SRW1]

"look for a renaissance of IED attacks targeting US military personnel in Irak."

"Why? They're mostly not coming from Iran."

Nothing to do with where the wave of IED attacks in the past originated from. But the Iranians are likely to retaliate after a bombing raid and US military personnel in the country next door are pretty obvious targets. I don't think the Iranians will go for any kind of open confrontation and most likely not even for military tactics like preparing ambushes and engaging into firefights. Using IEDs is cheap, doesn't require that many operatives and isn't easy to trace back to the perpetrators, especially not in Irak.

[A. Magnus]

Nobody likes to mention that Russia has unequivocally stated that any attack on Iran's reactors whilst Russian engineers are present will be considered an attack on Russia. A Russian/Iranian retaliation is guaranteed to bring a US response. Israel is fixing to get us all killed just because they can't stand another rival theocracy in their playground sandbox. Worse yet, they're using OUR tax dollars to do it...

[steven andresen]

Biden says evry country has the right to do what it wants?

But, I don't bel;ieve countries have the right to merely attack other countries, because it wants to do so. There are internationbal laws against thjis which make those countries "outlaws" and their leaders and enablers subject to prosecution.

Just because the U.S. has so far kept Bush and his cronies safe from prosecution for Iraq does not mean Uncle Sam will always be there. There are no time limts for how long one can bring these guys to justice for the crimes they are accused of.

Biden may be arguing that if we are to believe the lie that Iran is planning to destroy Israel, then Israel has the right to destroy Iran's means of destruction first. But, that they would be justified in attacking Iran depends on one first granting them that Iran has this original "bad" intention. \

But, it this even allowed? Suppose Mexico had some bad intention. And it was planning to carry out attacks on various American cities. But, as yet all we knew were stories about their intentions and plans. Would this justify some "pre-emptive strike" against Mexico? I don't believe "pre-crime" is a crime yet.

So, I don't think Isreal has a case until the Iranians declare themselves materially.