MJ Rosenberg says what I've been saying all along:
Bottom line: The purpose of these articles [about an imminent Israeli attack on Iran] is not to predict an Israeli attack but to force the United States government into piling on sanction after sanction (with war always an option) rather than pursue a diplomatic solution to the crisis.
It makes no sense. And yet, due to the pressure of the pro-war lobby, it is diplomacy that is barely on the table, while war, always the direst option, is front and center.
Yup. And their goal?
Sanctions up to a point. War, if deemed necessary, farther down the road. And ideally a war fought by the United States and not Israel, to preserve not Israel's security but its regional hegemony.
If the American people allow that to happen, we are truly out of our minds.
So I guess we'll see. But the Leveretts don't sound too optimistic about the chances that Obama can break the AIPAC death grip on US foriegn policy:
The case for serious U.S. diplomacy with Iran could not be clearer. But seriousness, in this context, will require very significant changes in U.S. policy and Washington’s overarching attitude about the Islamic Republic. We hope that we are wrong, but we do not think it likely that the Obama Administration will be up for this, especially not at the President continues his re-election bid.