Replies

Here are my working assumptions:

1. Israel will attack Iran at some point, unless the U.S. finds a way, militarily or otherwise, to stop Iran’s nuclear program.

2. Israeli leadership doesn’t trust Obama and wants him out.

3. Israeli leadership, for reason #2, wants Romney to win the election.

4. Attacking before the election is more likely to help Obama than hurt him, because it will give him the opportunity to play Commander in Chief at a time when all of the news outlets will be reporting on nothing else but the attack, the outcome, and Obama’s response to it.

5. Israel knows that whatever Obama says after the attack, he is likely to revert to form after he wins the election.

6. The American public is weary of war and doesn’t want to be dragged into another one.

Given those assumptions, here are some logical conclusions.

Because of assumption #4, Israel won’t attack before the election. They want Romney to win.

Because everyone believes assumption #1, saber-rattling by Israel will be believed by most.

Because of assumption #6, and because saber-rattling before the election can be blamed on Obama’s previous failure to lead thus far, Israeli talk of an attack will hurt Obama’s chances of being re-elected.

Thus, we’re getting the saber-rattling, but the attack will come after the election, if at all. For now, the Israeli leadership will be doing what they can to get Obama defeated by Romney.

Ironically, if Romney wins, we could be looking at a situation quite similar to the Iranian hostage crisis in 1980, with a similar resolution, only this time all Israeli citizens are the hostages. All Romney will have to do is make it clear that the fate of the leaders of Iran will be similar to the fate of Saddam Hussein if they don’t drop their nuclear program immediately.

And I would bet that in closed-door conversations Romney and the Israeli leadership have come to an agreement as to what needs to be done to stop the Iranian nuclear program, though that isn’t a necessary part of the analysis.