Ms Voshell is right, but the question is consistent with what ?

Submitted by Jon (France), Jul 15, 2009 at 06:47

I believe that the Obama administration policy is based in the clearly unsustainable costs, in the current environment, of the US's various positions in the ME and Central Asia.

Clearly a strong Israel is compatible with US access to oil, but a weakened Israel, after an Israeli strike against Iran is even more comfortable. Equally a US strike against Iran would create much difficulty for the US in the area, and outside it, and would prejudice these interests.

Best therefore to force Israel to do the dirty work in Iran (which it inevitably will at some point) is in US interests.

Other negatives of the US "doing the job" would be perhaps a future regime change in Iran, where the people (as opposed to the regime) have a lot in common with Israelis, and might (heaven forbid) make an unholy alliance with Israel, and perhaps India, to dominate the whole ME/Central Asia area.

This would have negative implications for Saudi Arabia's ruling clans, and therefore US interests.

Much better to have the Israelis alienate the Iranian population, in an event which will survive any "regime change" consequent, or subsequent to an Israeli "hit".

As a result the Obama Administration will support the Mollahs, against the population, until the Israelis do the job. The Israelis will try to effect regime change immediately, and are probably doing so now.

Will they manage to do this quickly, against US support for the Regime ? That is the question.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".