Ed's Blog

"Some people know everything, but that's all they know."



Will the 2012 presidential election’s October surprise be an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear program; and how would it affect the outcome of the election?  (Read the full column at EWRoss.com)


Filed under: National Security, Politics, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

22 Responses

  1. LinkedIn Group: Defense Industry Network

    With two million just donated to his reelection by Jewish Americans he has been bought to support these attacks which will come right before the election The end of October when it happens Martial law will be evoked and the elections postponed for the first time in American history !

    Posted by Paul Daly

  2. LinkedIn Group: Center for a New American Security


    Not there isn’t enough issues for the US to deal with, your article adds one that has the potential to create more of a world order level of mess. Reasonable article.

    “The bottom line, in my opinion, is that an attack close to the election is more likely to favor President Obama. An attack anytime from now until mid-October is more likely to favor Gov. Romney…” Sadly, either of your scenarios is a major problem for the US and the already unstable region.

    Syria seems to nearing collapse, Egypt is attempting to get organized, Iraq is at best a weak nation, Afghanistan is a question mark? Russia and China have some major interests in the region that are not well matched with our interests. Our Western allies don’t seem to rushing to sign up to do much with the Arab Spring or add much support to us on Syria.

    Gov. Romney and Rep Ryan, if elected, aren’t prepared to engage in the region and their foreign advisors don’t have a great record there. The Governor’s comments in Israel certainly gives them a green light to attack. Not in the US best interests in my opinion. No problem with the idea Iran can’t be trusted with nuclear material. No doubt they will not keep their word with the current government. But, military action alone is not going to get it done either.

    This is not to suggest support for Pres. Obama, rather that we (US) seem to be in our weakness position for a very long time in the region.

    What is the answer? A collapsed Syria certainly helps us (US) and hurts the Iranians. The new government in Egypt and the outcome in Syria should be Israel’s biggest concern. A new Regional Strategic seems to be in order and it must be one we can afford.

    two cents worth.

    Posted by Jeff Nelson

  3. Reposted From LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Heritage Foundation

    Israel and Iran may be the only entities holding aces in the game. On one hand, Israel cannot wait much longer. On the other, anything she does to help BHO win reelection is clearly not in her best interest. If BHO persuades Israel to proceed with an attack, the Israelis will consider his penchants for abrupt reversal, unreliability, and sympathies for the Muslim world. If such an attack is to take place, and if Israel can wait, she might see it wiser to wait until promptly after the US election. Should the attack be deemed necessary before that, some will blame BHO’s previous inaction, and some will praise any belated decision. He could gain some approval, but only if he can persuade America’s skeptical electorate that he had a worthy claim to some modicum of credit.

    Posted by Ronald Bouwman

  4. Reposted From LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: Politics on the Rocks

    It would favor Obama if he supports the strike and is shown to be involved in the process.

    Posted by William Scotti

  5. Reposted From LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: Council for Emerging National Security Affairs


    This was written about last year by Stratfor, but where we would attack and why. I thought that it was extremely irresponsible to even suggest such a ‘wag the dog’ option.
    I posted this on our IACSP group this morning, so here is my opinion (not that of any employer or organization that I am on the board of):

    I would contend that one of the many unintended consequences of an Israeli strike on Iran would include, but not be limited to, terrorists attacks by they and their proxies worldwide and having Hizbollah retaliate with a combination of rocket attacks and overseas terrorist attacks. We have already seen that Hizbollah will launch many salvos of rockets from Southern Lebanon into Israel, and we may even see worse. This is not to mention how this could also result in more robust opposition to Israel and persecution of Jews by the many Muslim countries in the Middle East and North Africa. For lack of a better term, it could really turn up a real hornet’s nest of hatred, persecution, and retaliation. Granted, there are many that hate them anyways, but this could really make matters worse.

    Perhaps if there is any type of overt kinetic operation, it should be conducted by the US and with the assistance of Iran’s enemies, leaving Israel out of it. Further, there are certainly non-Shia countries in that part of the world that would love more than anything for someone to ‘take a piece out of’ Iran, and these are folks that are of value to us. Nothing against Israel, as they have some very capable people, but the concern here would be what the reaction would be and what it would mean for their future.

    In closing, it would be completely suicidal for senior leadership in Iran’s government to pursue any type of nuclear weapon, considering that we pretty much have them surrounded, have a number of different assets within striking distance, and have allies in the region that will help us in any operations against them as well. They would be far better off standing down on this effort, and I would be willing to bet if the average Iranian citizen really knew what was going on, they would not be happy with it and what they are facing if their government does not stand down. Unfortunately, we are dealing with a country that is a state sponsor of terrorism and that has made major, irrational mistakes in the past.

    I personally hope that the Israelis do not hit Iran (overtly) for the reasons listed. They have enough challenges facing them and if the Iranians do in fact have a fissionable weapon and a delivery platform that it would actually work on, then hopefully we will do the right thing as an extension of our longstanding commitment to counterproliferation.

    Posted by J M Peterson

  6. Reposted From LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: Wall Street Journal – International business professionals networking group


    Israel must take care of itself–independent of the elections.

    Posted by David Rich

  7. Reposted From LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: GIS for Defense & Military = Geospatial Intelligence (GEOINT)


    The announcement by the new Egyptian president that he would be attending a conference in Tehran has thrown a wild card intoany potential Iran-Israeli clash. If the visit occurs it will be the first such event since the 1970’s. If the attack happens in October the Obama administration will have no recourse but to fully support Israel., which will be a positive factor for Obama.

    Posted by Fred Brocker

  8. Reposted From LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: Intelligence and National Security Alliance (INSA)


    In my opinion, we cannot stop considering an Israeli free rider action that would force Obama to support the attack due to the fact that Rommey supports the action as he has previously remarked. Only whenever Obama sees the elections lost and the Republicans “allow” him to “start” the attack, he will support any attack over Iran “leaded” by USA. He could expect that US voters will support their president & chief comander during war time.

    However, the point here is, and from Europe I have not clear information about, whether a war that is mainly driven by the Iranian menace over Israel and not over USA will be welcome by American voters due the fiscal situation of the country.

    The answer to your question would be a realistic cost & benefit analysis of the previous two points I mentioned above.

    Anyway, the best-conditions window to attack Iran before the elections is between October the 12 and 18th. If not, next Spring most likely.

    Posted by Ismael Soto

  9. It is difficult to get a good read on Israel’s intentions regarding a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. From what I have read it is not clear what impact such a strike would have on Iran’s march towards becoming a nuclear power. President Obama has made it clear to the Israelis, though not to the American public, that he favors a diplomatic solution over military one. The Israelis do not want to attack Iran and precipitate a wider conflict without first obtaining American military support. Israeli leaders understand that as long as Barack Obama sits in the White House they cannot count on a public declaration of support for military action against Iran. I think that the Israelis believe that sooner or later they will have to take action and force the United States, regardless of who is sitting in the White House, to play its diplomatic and military hand. The administration has been forced to admit that Iraq has been helping Iran skirt the international sanctions. President Obama might not want to be politically embarrassed by supporting a conflict with Iran that is being backed by Iraq. For many reasons the time to act might be sooner than later for the Israelis.

  10. Reposted From LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: US Military Veterans Network


    Valid what-if scenario analysis, however, Isreal’s decision to attack are not going to be based on US politics.

    Posted by Anita Weiss

  11. Reposted From LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: Naval Postgraduate School Alumni


    Regardless when an Israeli attack on Iran came, I would cut all ties with Israel. The notion that any nation would or could influence our democratic process is sickening…although recognized to a degree a reality, all global interactions influence everyone’s politics, but unilaterally entering into a nuclear conflict or one that threatens to become a messy, dirty conflict is not the kind of ally any country needs, period. This is truly a mouse that roared scenario. With regard to the hyperbole and bombastic language used by the Iranian regime, it amazes me that anyone still pays attention. Except for the fact that some may be gluttons for getting their feelings hurt or like to get their war hackles up for some weird reason. Finally, with regard to Egypt’s tanks in the Sinai and the violation of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty, Israel has its own violations of international agreements to contend with. This is just a messy and long overdue conflict begging a solution, the likes of which is at least one or two generations away, and the solution not depending on whether or not Iran has nuclear weapons.

    Posted by Tony Kopacz

  12. Bill Jordan says:

    Perhaps we must be prepared to deal with a nuclear-armed Iran, like it or not. I believe the Israelis are smart enough to realize the limitations of an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities despite the successful Osirak attack in the past–but that was three decades ago. Military capabilities have changed considerably since then.

    The nuclear genie can’t be put back in the bottle–the only successful effort was denuclearizing the Republic of Korea some years ago and that only through the U.S. conventional and nuclear umbrella and a long standing U.N. and bilateral treaty obligation.

    Right now, there is precedent for an uneasy balance of power between two nuclear-armed powers: the U.S.-Sino four decades standoff. More recently, South Asia has operated under a similar arrangement with both India and Pakistan maintaining a bi-polar standoff for over a decade. Scary, and hardly stable, but so far the rough parity in nuclear capability between the two actors, despite discrepancies between size and military capabilites, has probably limited escalation rather than heightened it.

    Seems like it would be wise for U.S.–and NATO–to be formulating policy responses to nuclear proliferation arising from a nuclear-armed Iran. It’s conceivable that unilateral, or imagined U.S. urging of a unilateral Israeli strike would lead to the worse possible scenario, turning a state whose leadership hates the U.S. but a western-oriented and non-secular populace with at least an abiding sense and somewhat admiration of U.S. democratic, social and economic principles to one resembling Pakistan’s citizenry–also hating the U.S. and supporting the current regime.

    The Iranian regime will eventually implode–there is probably a time for military action, as it is with North Korea, but it hasn’t arrived yet. Turn up the diplomatic pressure, tighten the economic screws and make the NATO regional nations (Turkey/Greece) and Balkan states closest to the downwind fallout patterns aware of the dangers of an instragient and irrational nuclear-armed Iran. We’ve seen the dangers implicit in unilateral or bilateral actions with the disastrous second Iraq war–a quagmire with no support from the rest of the international community.

  13. Reposted From LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Forum


    My analysis of the Israeli War Talk is just FEAR . Israel forgets that their brother the military generals are not in charge of Egypt any more. So they have to rethink because many people in Egypt hate Israel.

    The Americans are loosing the war in Afghanistan and Iraq and NATO allies wants their troops home sooner then soon.

    We know that the USA elections is about who got the most money or business behind it wins it. The elections just going to pass by and politician will make all their promises which never come true…..and again the american people are taken for a ride….

    Posted by Sizwe Abrahams

  14. Reposted From LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: Intelligence and National Security Alliance (INSA)

    More importantly, does Israel have a choice or the bunker busters to halt the final production before its too late.

    Posted by John Weiler

    • Reposted From LinkedIn says:

      LinkedIn Group: Intelligence and National Security Alliance (INSA)

      I guess that deadline has been already crossed, sadly

      Posted by Ismael Soto

  15. Reposted From LinkedIn says:



    Here’s something interesting to include in your equation for analysis of this question. Currently Saudi Arabia (Suni) and Iran (Shite) are engaged in a religious proxy war in Syria. With no love lost between Israel and Iran (Hezbullah and Hamas), Israel – in a “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” relationship – is rumored to be quietly supporting Saudi Arabia and its allies.

    Posted by Daniel Kirkpatrick

  16. Reposted From LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: Tea Party Connect – From A Business View


    Don’t know about the election but am sure it would cause a terrible mess, much worse than anything we have seen up to now. Iran is a big country with a much large population that Afghanistan or even Iraq and with a much more difficult geography than Iraq. Also, Pakistan just next doof, full up to the throat with nukes and Russina, Chinese, US-American, French,….weapons of all kinds is home to a very large crowd of very bad and angry religious radicals who hate the West and the USA with the fullest of their furious souls. There are about one billion Muslims on thos globe of ours and jet another strike of a non-Muslim nation agains a Muslim nation would certainly not go down with them well. Instead of striking out against Iran it might be much more advisable to see into it what means can be found to live in peace with Iran.

    See this: Iran and it’s fight agains Israel make for a very, very odd combination. The Iranians (Persians actually) are NOT Arabs, they consider themselves Aryan; Indo-Europeans. The Iranians are largely Shia Muslim while most of the Arabs and also of the Palestine people, are Sunni Muslim. These two are and have been at odds for long. There is no direct border between Iran and Israel and still Iran is the number one country to fight agains Isreal with words and also with support of each and every one who sets out to fight agains Isreal with whatever means.

    The Iranians have pretty much nothing to do with Isreal, the land dispute is not concerning their own land or borders, they are not Arab brethren, they don’t have any historic hostilities, they don’t have any strategig or geo-strategic clash of interests, there is no obvious ore even conceivable hidden reason for any hostility.
    So why is the government of Iran constantly lashing out agains Isreal?

    What about this:

    The current government of Iran is hated at home, too, and sees no other way to galvanize people domestically and to muster some support among Muslims internationally than going agsinst Isreal.

    See this: The Arabs of the Gulf State like the Saudis and all the others are foeas of the Iranian government. Pakistan is a Sunni nation and is and hase been very much at odds with Iran. Turkey is largely Sunni but for sure not much Shia and the Turks are not Aryans either, but both share a border and have a history of not quite peacefully shaking hands across that border. To the north is the Russian sphere of influence with Orthodox Christians and even though Russia plays nice to cushion Iran in the UNO and the United Nations Security Council, historic relations have been less than amical and there remain many, many disputes.

    So on all sided, the current government of Iran is not quite liked, not least from the inside. So they try to muster support by striking out agains the very one country and nations whom everybody else in the region also frowns at.
    And we (the West) play the game that the Iranian government chose to play and forced upon us. We should better think about changing the rules or playing a different game altogether.

    Posted by Ingo Potsch

  17. Disbelief says:

    This warmongering would be insanity for the US. How about peace for a change? And stay out of the other countries and mind our own problems and people’s real needs. Crazy shit to make MIC rich.

  18. Reposted From LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Forum


    On Sept 6th, Dr. Stephen David of Johns Hopkins University will speak on “Apocalypse Now?: Iran’s Nuclear Threat to Israel and What Can Be Done about It” at the first seminar in the 9th series of the JHU/APL Rethinking Seminars. Time: 6:00-8:00PM Location: Marriott Residence Inn, Pentagon City Details & registration: http://www.jhuapl.edu/rethinking.

    Posted by Peggy Harlow

  19. Reposted From LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: Tea Party Connect – From A Business View


    Which is worse, annihilation by Iran with nuclear weapons or war?

    Posted by Todd Wood

  20. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: Tea Party Connect – From A Business View


    Response? A post full of simple declaratives and imperatives,without full disclosure of evidence,cannot ellicit my response. Try posting with sequential if/thens,each given full
    evidentiary backup,and my response will be forthcoming. I`ll take each point in turn.

    Gene Henley

    Posted by Marvin Eugene Henley

  21. Craig Plott says:

    WATCH OCTOBER 19,2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Share This Blog

Bookmark and Share

EWRoss on Twiter

RSS EWRoss.com RSS

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
%d bloggers like this: