How to start a war

Of course the car-bombings of Iranian nuke scientists are the work of Israel. Even the New York Times and Fox News point in that direction, which means that the artist wants a signature on his canvas. What's interesting is the methodology: There are quieter, subtler ways to kill people.

The Obama administration has strongly denied any involvement. However, the Jerusalem Post, citing a respected blogger named Richard Silverstein (who in turn cites an Israeli intelligence source), claims that Mossad trained terrorists from the People's Mujahedin of Iran (MEK), and that the US was necessarily involved. Silverstein's blog post is here; come to your own assessment.

In a more recent post, Silverstein writes:

What’s disingenuous about this approach is that the U.S. and Israel are joined at the hip in this black ops war against Iran. They developed Stuxnet with Israel. The very same MEK terrorists sticking magnetic bombs to the car doors of Iranian scientists are the ones our government is considering giving a clean bill of health by removing them from the terror list.

Silverstein goes on to ask the right question:

If Iran were assassinating Israeli scientists or the Soviet Union assassinated Edward Teller or J. Robert Oppenheimer does anyone in their right mind believe it wouldn’t arouse a fierce backlash against the perpetrators?

Conclusion: The Israelis hope to provoke a reaction. The car bombings cannot seriously slow the Iranian nuke program, but they can prod Iran to retaliate. In doing so, Iran would give the U.S. the casus belli which the neocons seek.

Israel wants war.

Why would Obama go along with this dangerous game? Well, I haven't seen much "Obama hates Israel" propaganda this election season. And Obama has raised money at an impressive clip.

As Gary Sick writes...

A war with Iran would not be surgical, brief, or one-sided. As memorably noted by Gen. Anthony Zinni, if you like Iraq and Afghanistan, you will love Iran. It is a huge country, well-defended, with a fierce sense of nationalism. No air campaign, even if prolonged, will end the problem. Regardless of how a conflict begins, it is most likely to end with lots of boots on the ground. A squad of special forces will not do the job.

Paradoxically, the quickest way to insure that the Iranians decide to go for a bomb may be to bomb them. The most predictable result of a military strike would be Iran's withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the ejection of International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors and cameras that watch every step of the Iranian enrichment process.

On the domestic political front: Mitt Romney has given clear signals that he supports the war conspiracy.

Obama? Despite the words written above, he seems to be more of a mixed bag. Although he may be as oily as Romney -- well, almost as oily -- the two men represent differing constituencies. The Democratic party leadership does not want war with Iran. The Demcoratic rank-and-filers, who have put up with an infinitude of crap from this president, will not tolerate that level of military adventurism.

Corrupt Obama may be, but I've never called him a neocon, and I don't think he wants to repeat Dubya's disaster on a larger scale.

On the other hand, it is likely that his administration allowed Israel and MEK to carry out these bombings. My guess is that he intends to play along with the war conspirators until re-election is secured. Until that point, he hopes to keep the pot bubbling without boiling over.