Available Now! (click cover)

America's Counter-Revolution
The Constitution Revisited

From the back cover:

This book challenges the assumption that the Constitution was a landmark in the struggle for liberty. Instead, Sheldon Richman argues, it was the product of a counter-revolution, a setback for the radicalism represented by America’s break with the British empire. Drawing on careful, credible historical scholarship and contemporary political analysis, Richman suggests that this counter-revolution was the work of conservatives who sought a nation of “power, consequence, and grandeur.” America’s Counter-Revolution makes a persuasive case that the Constitution was a victory not for liberty but for the agendas and interests of a militaristic, aristocratic, privilege-seeking ruling class.

Wednesday, September 05, 2012

Is an Attack on Iran Less Likely Now?

Updated below.

Top reporters Gareth Porter and Jim Lobe write:
President Barack Obama’s explicit warning that he will not accept a unilateral Israeli attack against Iran may force Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to step back from his ostensible threat of war.
Netanyahu had hoped that the Obama administration could be put under domestic political pressure during the election campaign to shift its policy on Iran to the much more confrontational stance that Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak have been demanding.
But that political pressure has not materialized, and Obama has gone further than ever before in warning Netanyahu not to expect U.S. backing in any war with Iran. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey told reporters in Britain Aug. 30 that an Israeli strike would be ineffective and then said, “I don’t want to be complicit if they [the Israelis] choose to do it.”
It was the first time that a senior U.S. official had made such an explicit public statement indicating the administration’s unwillingness to be a party to a war provoked by a unilateral Israeli attack.
Read the rest at Antiwar.com.

As they note, it is significant that Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic's Israel apologist who often channels the thoughts of the Jewish State's leaders, has enumerated "7 Reasons Why Israel Should Not Attack Iran's Nuclear Facilities."

Here's #6:
A strike could be a disaster for the U.S.-Israel relationship. It might not be -- there is no sympathy for the Iranian regime among Americans (except on the left-most, and right-most margins) and there is plenty of sympathy for Israel. But an attack could trigger an armed Iranian response against American targets. (Such a response would not be rational on the part of Iran, but I don't count on regime rationality.) Americans are tired of the Middle East, and I'm not sure how they would feel if they believed that Israeli action brought harm to Americans. Remember, American soldiers have died in the defense of Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, but they've never died defending Israel. I doubt Israel wants to put Americans in harm's way now. And it certainly isn't healthy for Israel to get on the wrong side of an American president. [Emphasis added.]
It's not time to relax yet, but these are indeed good signs.

UPDATE: Phil Giraldi has come along to spoil my relaxation.

3 comments:

Kevin Carson said...

I'm guessing Obama's afraid $12 gasoline in October, and shit blowing up all over the Middle East, would hurt his reelection chances.

Sheldon Richman said...

Agreed. Netanyahu may be overestimating American Jewish concern with Israel. I've seen polls indicating that for most Jewish votes, Israel is far from the top five issues.

Anonymous said...

Earlier today:

"Canada abruptly closed its embassy in Iran and expelled Iranian diplomats in Ottawa Friday, citing safety concerns in Tehran and the long-standing view that Iran is a significant threat to global peace".

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-closes-embassy-in-iran-expels-iranian-diplomats-1.946127

Pathetic.

Richard G.