Iran Expects an Israeli Attack Before US Presidential Election

Like a broken loop that recycles and recycles on a record, the chatter about Iran, its nuclear weapon, red line warnings by the US, and threats by both Iran and Israel, a showdown of some sort seems near.

We know the sanctions the past months have hurt only Iran's general public, the centrifuges continue to spin and many now say by October will have massed sufficient enriched uranium for the first bomb. Remember, Israel is small, it only takes 1-2 nuclear bombs to ruin it. With that in mind, and knowing the US will not support Israel in any attack from the Obama people, Israel is reaching a deadline to attack. Iran said publicly that it expects such an attack before the US Presidential election. Israel may feel more pressure for the attack thinking that Obama will win, which is not good. Hezbollah, Iran's proxy force in Lebanon, has now gone public stating in no uncertain terms that even if the US does not help Israel attack Iran, all US bases in the Middle East will come under an attack as well as ships etc. So, in this sense, the US might has well help Israel. The government of Israel is debating about an attack and now must make a decision very soon.

The repercussions are enormous should the attack occur before the US election. It would put the elections in a real spin and could make or break the Obama administration. The election would become a sideshow for the world as war in the Mideast spread like wildfire. How would this impact US voters? The race is close.

I think Israel will attack, despite the odds, they have done so many times. However, this time, the outcome is dubious at best given the fact so much time has been given to the Iranians to go deeper underground. The mentality is Israel is "we have to try". Doing nothing is not an option.

More by this Author


Comments 13 comments

swordsbane profile image

swordsbane 4 years ago from Wisconsin

I wonder when they will get the idea that sanctions don't work. If anyone out there knows an situation where they have worked, please sound off. I can't find one, and they certainly don't work often enough or to the degree they need to to stop the really important things, like invading another country or building nuclear weapons. If you're going to invade or attack, do it and stop wasting time on useless actions that only hurt the citizens of the country you wish to influence.

As for Isreael attacking Iran... Go get 'em.


perrya profile image

perrya 4 years ago Author

I tend to agree, they have got to give it their best shot and be ready for the calamity that follows. Damned if you do, damned if you don't- but at least you tried.


swordsbane profile image

swordsbane 4 years ago from Wisconsin

Actuually, if I was Israel, I'd be setting up MAD right now. I would assure Iran that would not attack their country unless I had reason to believe there was an immediate threat of a nuclear, biological or chemical attack by Iran, in which case Israel would make a preemptive strike with all weapons at our disposal, nuclear included.

It worked for the US and USSR, and the middle east will be there, sooner or later.


Mark 4 years ago

I think a lot of this has to do with Israel's lack of trust in Obama. I think they feel Romney would be a better friend to Israel. The Israelis can claim that failed sanctions and Obama being indecisive left them no other choice but to attack. They can also claim that they had to attack immediately based on the recent reports that Iran's nuclear program is moving ahead faster than initially thought. I'm sure there is also additional intel they could release to help their cause.

The U.S. will surely be brought in to any potential conflict between Israel and Iran. Even if the Iranians did not initially launch missiles at U.S. bases in the region, they would surely make a mess out of the Persian Gulf requiring U.S. intervention. I think this would kill Obama's chances of re-election. America doesn't want another war right now and Obama wouldn't be able to blame this one on Bush.


perrya profile image

perrya 4 years ago Author

@mark, I totally agree. This could be a reason why Israel does attack to support Romney, besides more obvious. Did you know that the Obama speech at the convention removed a reference of Jerusalem as being the capital? also, removed the word God. Obama previously said he agreed that jerusalem is the capital of Israel. He is trying to hard to please everyone.


Mark 4 years ago

@perrya, I saw that earlier today. After your message the Democrats changed their opinion on that. I think part of that was due to criticism by Republicans and part of it due to Wasserman Shultz's recent comments. It's kind of hard to say Republican policies are dangerous to Israel, while at the same time removing references to Jerusalem, and having one of the Democrat's main speakers being called a liar by the Israeli government.

We'll see what happens. This one is unpredictable. I just don't see any benefit to the Israelis waiting to attack. They already seem to believe that they will have to attack sooner or later.


swordsbane profile image

swordsbane 4 years ago from Wisconsin

I don't know about Israel supporting Romney. #1; he's an idiot, like Bush. #2; Democrats and Republican doesn't matter. They don't have much different opinions on most foreign policy (any policy, really) but the Dems have to appear to only pay lip service to Israel. On the other hand, they know as much as the Republicans that Israel is the popular Underdog and when it comes right down to it, we'll support them. It just might need a bigger show of convincing if a Dem is in power. #3; none of this matters if the US runs out of money, and another war (except for the briefest of single missions) will bankrupt the country.


Mark 4 years ago

@swordsbane. Your points seem more based on emotion than substance.

"#1; he's an idiot, like Bush." - That's purely an emotional response. Obviously you're not going to vote for Romney and nothing he does will change that. I do not believe Obama's actions on Iran in the past 3 and a half years are satisfactory to Israel and particularly Netanyahu.

"#2; Democrats and Republican doesn't matter. They don't have much different opinions on most foreign policy (any policy, really) but the Dems have to appear to only pay lip service to Israel. On the other hand, they know as much as the Republicans that Israel is the popular Underdog and when it comes right down to it, we'll support them. It just might need a bigger show of convincing if a Dem is in power." - Actually there truly are some differences. I enlisted in the military during the Clinton administration, served throughout Bush's time in office, and left while Obama was president. I clearly saw some some differences in foreign policy, especially as it related to the military.

"#3; none of this matters if the US runs out of money, and another war (except for the briefest of single missions) will bankrupt the country." - I'm not sure what you mean by "briefest of single missions." I do not expect conventional ground forces to play much of a part, if any, in a conflict with Iran. I expect that the Air Force and Navy will play the largest roles and most combat will center around the Persian Gulf. The naval forces needed to engage Iran are already in the region and Air Force bombers can fly long range missions from the United States or quickly deploy to theater. I don't expect a long conflict. I expect a bloody one.


perrya profile image

perrya 4 years ago Author

For myself, Obama seems rather too cautious, wanting NATO to take the lead, while it does seem fair, sometimes you just have to be bold as with bin Laden. Obama is unwilling to take make risk. In Syria, there should already be a no fly zone along the turk border into some of Syria. Obama's policy there is much to cautious. With iran, he is being played a fool like Kissinger was with the NVA talks on the Vietnam war.


swordsbane profile image

swordsbane 4 years ago from Wisconsin

Mark: Calling Romney an idiot is not an emotional response. He wants to ban porn from the internet. He thought strapping his dog to the roof of his car was a great idea. I was astounded to find out that he wasn't a creationist. He says he thinks government spending is out of control, just like every other president or candidate, yet not one of them does anything about it. Whether Obama "satisfies" Netanyahu or not, the differences are trifling and don't matter in the long run. We still take Israels side in all things. We are practically their sworn protector. Oh, yeah.. sometimes we admonish them for some things, and the voice is louder when it comes from a Democrat, but I don't see our actions as very different. Democrats like to play at not being Israels best buddy, but that is very misleading.

Please show me some real differences between Dems and Reps when it comes to foreign policy. I'd really like to know.

What I mean by "single mission" is a one-shot air strike, or surgical strike. Anything that requires ongoing operations, either in the air or on the ground (or at sea) will break us unless we can find someone else to foot the bill. The United States is running out of money. What you expect and what happens are not necessarily going to be the same thing, least of all when it comes to killing people and blowing up stuff. Bush thought the Iraq war would be over quickly. Three times, he thought that, or at least that's what he told us. I don't expect Romney to be any different in that regard. They always underestimate the time it will take and the money it will take.

@perrya: NATO SHOULD take the lead on this. Iran is much closer to them than they are to us. I have no problem with the US being the worlds policeman, but the cost is prohibitive. We're bankrupting the country doing this. Something else needs to happen, or we're going to be powerless and someone else will have to deal with countries like Iran.... and the consequences. That doesn't make Obama too cautious. It makes him a Democrat. Dealing with Bin Laden wasn't bold. In case you forgot, we were attacked in 2001. It took us ten years to get him. In the meantime, we destroyed two countries and spent over $ten trillion, Bin Laden couldn't have done more damage if we had ignored 9/11. When it takes you ten years to bring a criminal to justice, how do you spin that? Do you claim that he must have been a worthy adversary because it took you so long to get him, or do you blame someone or something else for getting in the way of the hunt. Republicans do the former, Democrats do the latter. Either way, the end result is the same... It's not their fault, and it took ten years. It's not like we can go back and unspend the money or anything. From where I'm sitting, killing Bin Laden was just another tick on the clock. I suppose it could mark an "end" point of some kind. On the other hand, he's dead and we're still in Afghanistan. It didn't seem to really DO much of anything except make everyone feel great about Seal Team Six and the military.


perrya profile image

perrya 4 years ago Author

yeah, I agree with alot of ur rant, still.......


Mark 4 years ago

@perrya: I'm surprised you agree with the rant. Swordsbane is truly living in a personal dreamland. He's just full of anti-conservative bullshit.

@swordsbane: NATO taking the lead? Really, do you think that could possibly happen? Israel is going to take the lead and the U.S. is going to be dragged in the war whether we like it or not. There is no perfect solution in the real world and you have to pick the best option given. You also don't need to comment on the military. You wouldn't last ten minutes in the military.


Mark 4 years ago

I think the Obama administration sealed the attack today. First, they refused to mark a "red line." Then Obama snubbed a meeting with Netanyahu because that would interfere with his campaigning. Maybe Obama thinks he is calling Netanyahu's bluff. The problem is that Netanyahu is not bluffing. Obama's supporters on this need to understand that Netanyahu doesn't think like Obama. He was a member of Sayeret Matkal, as was his brother Yoni. Yoni led the raid on Entebbe and was the only Israeli fatality. The Israelis aren't playing and Obama gave them the finger twice today. This will lead to Obama's defeat in the election. The Israelis will say the U.S. and the world gave them no other choice than to attack to protect themselves.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working