Hedging his bets. Netanyahu isn’t too popular in Washington right now.

Posted by: dh | Mar 14 2015 18:12 utc | 3

Is it really surprising? Netanyahu’s speech was a disaster. Even the most right-wing patriotic anti-Obama GOP politician must hesitate at enfeebling the US presidency as an institution. Once the presidency delegitimised, future Republican presidents may also find their authority weakened.
Netanyahu’s speech has also led to a weakening of his support in Israel, and he may lose in the election. There the thinking is different – has Netanyahu put the vital US alliance in question? That associated with Netanyahu’s incompetence on the Israeli economy.
It was a weak speech. He didn’t come up with any new definitive justification against Iran. That failure was vital, as he effectively bet a high stake in deciding to go ahead.

Posted by: Laguerre | Mar 14 2015 19:22 utc | 5

Petition: No weapons to Ukraine!
http://diy.rootsaction.org/petitions/no-weapons-to-ukraine

Posted by: Anonymous | Mar 14 2015 19:52 utc | 7

Muravchik can safely ply his mental product, because no military will heed it, unless its leadership is profoundly retarded. As we discussed, there was a rehearsal of what may happen: the war of Israel with Hezbollah. Countermeasures of Iran:
Plan A. Bombing causes superficial damage, victory declared, US humiliated.
Plan B. Bombing causes major damage, Iran declares waters near its shore close to maritime traffic on the account of hostilities. Even now, with oil glut, that would be a major blow to the world economy (check Strait of Hormuz and its significance for oil trade).
Follow-up to Plan B. American response: bombing near Strait of Hormuz to stop Iranian missile batteries. Here is where the experience of 2006 comes in: the countermeasure has the form of hundreds or thousands of plausible outlets of tunnels where the missile launchers and missile can survive the bombing. Follow-up: send Marines. Iran is familiar with effective tactics for that alternative, again, lots of tunnel and short range missiles. Follow-up: Dahiya doctrine, slam population centers.
Would that happen, China and Russia will go “ballistic” and European support is far, far from certain. We are talking about prelude to WWIII in all its thermonuclear glory. At the very least, China and Russia will declare all sanctions on Iran null and void, and Russia will offer supplies of most advanced anti-aircraft systems, and perhaps anti-naval systems to boot, and perhaps nuclear umbrella to secure those supplies from preventative bombing (Diego Garcia is the best retaliatory target, being free of civilian casualties).
What will follow is probably multilateral mediation with Iran offering re-opening the waters to maritime trade in exchange for reparations and non-aggression guarantees.
This scenario is speculative, but there were various signals that China and Russia have “red lines”. For example, why USA backed down so easily from the idea of attacking Syria? Other example include various remarks in speeches, and concrete actions so far. Moreover, this scenario is so disastrous that one has to ask: what percentage of probability that it would happen is “worth it”?

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Mar 14 2015 20:14 utc | 9

~70% of Americans are OK with a ME war now, today. Think about that. Then consider any one of the current crop of clowns running for president sitting in the White House with a Rethuglican House and Senate. These guys mean it. They aren’t joking. Just the other day “Lindsey Graham: As president I would deploy the military against Congress” to force the Congress to fund war… Think about it hard.
http://www.vox.com/2015/3/11/8193751/lindsey-graham-military-coup

Posted by: hans | Mar 14 2015 20:46 utc | 11

I hate to burst everyone’s power bubble but Russia, Iran, Syria, have a mutual defense pact. So in essence Iran and Syria have offensive nukes in their arsenals. And an existential attack on either brings Russia into the conflict. Like Johnny Rotten said “Ever get the feeling you’ve been cheated?”
http://www.examiner.com/article/the-russia-iran-syria-mutual-defense-treaties-the-western-media-missed

Posted by: Alberto | Mar 14 2015 22:24 utc | 13

Was a revival of chatter surrounding Russia’s sale of the S-300 to Iran in Jan. 2015, as well of Iran showing off their own DIY system. Both probably another result of Idiot Netanyahu’s war-mongering. Since Ukraine, I really don’t see any reason for Russia to hold back.
Russia and Iran sign defense deal, ‘may resolve’ S300 missile delivery issue RT
Russia may send S-300 missile system to Iran JPost
Russia may send S-300 missile system to Iran – media Reuters
Debka, that old rag, even mentioned the S-400.
——-
“TWO CHEERS – Second Thoughts on the Bush Doctrine”
He seems to have failed to distinguish between “second thoughts” and “wet dreams”.

Posted by: guest77 | Mar 14 2015 23:59 utc | 15

The time for an air strike against Iran’s Nuke facilities, without unacceptable blowback, is long past. These war clowns are just pissing up a rope and they look all wet. There is nothing more pitiful than watching these fools try to deny, with stern words, their impotence.

Posted by: Wayoutwest | Mar 15 2015 0:38 utc | 17

Three Maps for Professor Muravchik

What Dr. Muravchik has proposed will not actually achieve any of America’s goals in regard to Iran and the Middle East.

This is the fallacy of all these analyses, contra BBB Iran. BBB Iran has nothing to do with achieving any American goals … anywhere. So lack of achieving America’s goals is no impediment to those advocating BBB Iran.
BBB Iran achieves BiBi Israel’s goals of chaos and destruction everywhere in the Middle East outside of – somehow – Israel. Destruction of US goals – if not, cumulatively, of the US itself – while unfortunate, is sheer, mere collateral damage.
Too bad. So sad. But BiBi and the neo-cons will have got everything worth stealing from the US before the US’ eventual collapse, due in no small part to Israel’s decades-long parasitism of its only ally and benefactor.

Posted by: jfl | Mar 15 2015 2:23 utc | 19

Maybe they learned from George and Dick’s Bogus Iraqi adventure that a little CYA never hurt anybody but knowing neocons it’s probably a messaging thing. Maybe frank luntz had found that most Americans find qualifiers “scholarly” or something…

Posted by: Cpl. Cam | Mar 15 2015 5:49 utc | 21

netanyahu,s speech was merely a feint,as preparations are being made to build up troop strength around saudi arabia
yemen will be the next stop,along with iraq.jordan is in position.the encirclement is almost complete.
westerners have been warned that saudi arabia is unsafe.
3 crows await,2 fly above,1 calls for out

Posted by: mcohen | Mar 15 2015 6:14 utc | 23

SM: “Wouldn’t destroying much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure merely delay its progress? Perhaps, but we can strike as often as necessary.”
Hmmmm. And it never occurs to him that, you know, other countries might decide to intervene in that little wet-dream of his?
Neocon: Bomb them once a week, every week, preferably on a Wednesday because that’s a slow news day!
Flunky: The first air strikes are in the air, next week’s strike is being prepped as we speak.
Neocon: Excellent. Keep me posted.
Flucky: Shit! Putin’s just announced he’s sending ten squadrons of Sukhoi’s to Tehran, and China is promising 50 squadrons of J-10’s by the weekend.
Neocon: Who… what… where?!?!?

Posted by: Johnboy | Mar 15 2015 10:58 utc | 25

for what it’s worth, most article titles are not composed by the author. Rather an editor comes up with the title in order to grab the attention of potential readers.

Posted by: Dan | Mar 16 2015 11:30 utc | 27

Ha ha ha ..good find, probably.
What gets me is the way all these ppl talk, as if they were discussing problems in 1st grade from the vantage point of punitive and idiotic teachers.
“Probably our best option is to remove Niloofar from gym..”
“Ivan doesn’t produce anything he just sits there and won’t write..”
“ We are deeply concerned by Pedro’s efforts to escalate intimidation, we feel he needs therapy ..”
And so on. Do they do this to get the public on board? Maybe they like to imagine that. But I’m afraid the deeper reasons are more frightening.

Posted by: Noirette | Mar 16 2015 15:44 utc | 29

I looked at the MOA archives from ten years ago and the discussions about bombing Iran were almost identical to the present ones. This Bomb Iran rhetoric is nothing more than bully projection aimed at forcing more humiliating concessions from Iran who have no nuke weapons program. The humiliation is necessary because of the US humiliation at the hands of Iran in ’79.
What strikes me is that Iran had an easy out of this conflict when Fukushima displayed to the world how filthy and dangerous Nuke Power is, they could have easily ended their power program without making any concessions to the West.

Posted by: Wayoutwest | Mar 16 2015 16:30 utc | 31

J@32
The Yanks only bomb weak countries that can’t defend themselves, Iran is not a weak country and can defend itself from the US or Israel, so no bombing just hubris and belligerent rhetoric.

Posted by: Wayoutwest | Mar 16 2015 17:49 utc | 33

Bombing of Iran is of course not the problem, but a proposal of a solution. To quote a book that I listened to before I learned how to read: “Pooh tried to think, and all he could think of was something which didn’t help at all. So he hummed it very quietly to himself.
If Rabbit
Was bigger
And fatter
And stronger,
Or bigger
Than Tigger,
If Tigger was smaller,
Then Tigger’s bad habit
Of bouncing at Rabbit
Would matter
No longer,
If Rabbit
Was taller.
So Winnie the Pooh and other animals decided that given the fanatical nature of Tigger (who would not give up bouncing at Rabbit) and the potential of creating a vast Tigger dominated region that would contain the entire Forest, the only solution is to bomb Tigger.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Mar 16 2015 19:07 utc | 35

Perhaps the Neocons noticed as well, that their buddy, the fearmonger called Netanjahu is about to lose the israeli elections ?

Posted by: Willy2 | Mar 16 2015 20:35 utc | 37