Bomb, Bomb, Iran? ;NY Times: “U.S. Says Exercise by Israel Seemed Directed at Iran”

Well, we all remember McCain’s rendition of “‘Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.”

“McCain began his answer by changing the words to a popular Beach Boys song,” the Georgetown Times reports.

“‘Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran,’ he sang to the tune of Barbara Ann,” the paper notes.

Unplugged McCain sings ‘bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran’

Today, the New York Times reports that the military exercise Israel performed a few weeks ago looks like a “rehearsal for a potential bombing attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.”

More tidings of possible war, and why Obama, while perhaps not perfect,  is far better than McCain on this, after the fold.  

Several American officials said the Israeli exercise appeared to be an effort to develop the military’s capacity to carry out long-range strikes and to demonstrate the seriousness with which Israel views Iran’s nuclear program.

More than 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighters participated in the maneuvers, which were carried out over the eastern Mediterranean and over Greece during the first week of June, American officials said.

snip

One Israeli goal, the Pentagon official said, was to practice flight tactics, aerial refueling and all other details of a possible strike against Iran’s nuclear installations and its long-range conventional missiles.

A second, the official said, was to send a clear message to the United States and other countries that Israel was prepared to act militarily if diplomatic efforts to stop Iran from producing bomb-grade uranium continued to falter.

NY Times

Earlier this month, “referring to Iran’s nuclear program, a spokesman for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that “all options must remain on the table” and added more could be done to put financial pressure on Tehran. Ynetnews, June 6, 2008

John McCain appears to seek war with Iran as much as Bush did with Iraq:

In an interview with the Atlantic in late May, McCain said that “Iran is hell-bent on the destruction of Israel, they’re hell-bent on driving us out of Iraq, they’re hell-bent on supporting terrorist organizations, and as serious as anything to American families, they’re sending explosive devices into Iraq that are killing American soldiers.”

In a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee this month, McCain again mocked Obama’s willingness to enter into dialogue with the Iranians, saying, “The idea that they now seek nuclear weapons because we refused to engage in presidential-level talks is a serious misreading of history.”

snip

On Iraq, McCain has joined the Bush administration in emphasizing allegations that Iranian-supplied weapons have been used by Shiite militias against American soldiers. Those allegations have been supported by scant or dubious evidence, and they distract from the overarching issues concerning war-torn Iraq.

snip

McCain jumped at the opportunity to play up Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric as indicative of a dire danger.

snip

But while Ahmadinejad’s bluster pays dividends for him in the Arab and Muslim street, and perhaps helps to distract the Iranian people from the painful economic problems that have compounded under his presidency, in reality it is no realistic reflection of Iranian foreign policy. Even if Ahmadinejad were really intent on waging war against Israel, he has no real power or authority to do so: He is not the commander in chief of Iran’s military; the supreme leader is. If Iran ever were to build a nuclear weapon, it would not be its president’s finger on the button, it would be its supreme leader’s. Ayatollah Khamenei has made it clear that Iran will never attack another country first, and it is certainly in its interest not to do so. Every Iranian official, and all the clerics including the supreme leader, know full well that an attack on Israel will mean suicide for the regime (if not the country more widely) — and the No. 1 priority, especially for the clerics, is to maintain the continuity of the regime.

Salon: McCain on Iran: Bush all over again

Now some of Obama’s rhetoric, especially to AIPAC, has not thrilled me.  Barack Obama on June 6:

United States Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama on Wednesday declared that as president his goal would be to eliminate the threat to Israel from Iran, speaking in an address to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

“I’ll do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything,” Obama told the pro-Israel lobby at a conference in Washington, only hours after securing his party’s nomination.

Later in the speech, which was frequently punctuated by the crowd’s rapturous applause, he said: “I will always leave the threat of military action on the table to defend our security, and that of our ally Israel.”

Obama to AIPAC: I’ll do everything to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes, By Haaretz Service and News Agencies   NY Times, .S. Says Exercise by Israel Seemed Directed at Iran

But there is a clear difference between McCain and Obama.  Barack Obama on negotiations:

KROFT: Would you talk to Iran or Syria?

OBAMA: Yes. I think that the notion that this administration has — that not talking to our enemies is effective punishment — is wrong. It flies in the face of our experiences during the Cold War. Ronald Reagan understood that it may be an evil empire, but it’s worthwhile for us to periodically meet to see are there areas of common interest. And most importantly, those conversations allow the possibility that our ideas and our values gain greater exposure in these countries. The fact of the matter is that Iran currently is governed by an oppressive regime, one that I think is a threat to the region and to our allies, but there are a lot of people in Iran who potentially would like to be part of this broader community of nations. For us not to be in a conversation with them doesn’t make sense.

Now I don’t think that that conversation should be conditioned on our accepting their support of terrorism or their building nuclear capacity and potentially sparking an arms race in the Middle East, any more than our conversations with the Kremlin presumed that we approved of their aggression around the world. You know, we can have a robust strategy of blocking and containing aggressive actions by hostile or rogue states, but still open up the possibility that over time those relationships may evolve and they may change. And there may be opportunities for us to resolve some of our differences, not all of them, but some of them in a constructive way.

KROFT: Would you advocate the use of military force to keep Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons?

OBAMA: I think we should keep all options on the table, but I think that our first step should be a much more aggressive approach to diplomacy than we’ve displayed thus far. And I think this is an example of where our blundering in Iraq has cost us dearly. Iran’s the big winner from the Iraq War. They have gained immeasurable strength in the Middle East, and because of the strains that it’s placed on our alliances and our leverage with other countries around the world, it’s made it more difficult for us to be able to mobilize international pressure to get them to stand down from what I believe is a process of developing nuclear weapons.

Transcript Excerpt: Sen. Barack Obama, 2/11/08

Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.

barackobama.com

And his response to Clinton’s “obliterate” language in May:

Sen. Barack Obama on Sunday accused Sen. Hillary Clinton of echoing the “bluster” of President Bush when she said the U.S. would be able to “obliterate” Iran if it used nuclear weapons against Israel.

snip

“We have had a foreign policy of bluster and saber-rattling and tough talk, and in the meantime have made a series of strategic decisions that have actually strengthened Iran.”

Israel is “the most important ally” the United States has in the Middle East, and that Washington would respond “forcefully and appropriately” to any attack, Obama said Sunday.

“But it is important that we use language that sends a signal to the world community that we’re shifting from the sort of cowboy diplomacy, or lack of diplomacy, that we’ve seen out of George Bush,” he said. “And this kind of language is not helpful.”

cnn.com

Of course, for all of this, the NIE Report that came to light last December is still operative:

A new U.S. intelligence report on Iran says that Tehran may be able to develop a nuclear weapon between 2010 and 2015. But the National Intelligence Estimate finds that Iran halted its nuclear weapons development program in the fall of 2003 due to international pressure – contradicting claims by the Bush administration.

Edwards on Bush Today; John Edwards: No Rush to War with Iran

So, notwithstanding Obama’s sometimes bellicose rhetoric to AIPAC and others, there is a clear difference between Obama and McCain on attacking Iran.  I’d much rather have Obama in power and trying to negotiate, than Bomb, bomb Iran, whether it is America or Israel who does the bombing.