Obama: "I'm ready to negotiate with you, Iran." Iran: "Fuck you."

[piercehawkeye45]

That's what I've been hearing as well. It is pretty clear that Obama is against a pre-emptive attack on Iran so if Israel wanted to go through with it, they would have to go alone. That is why they are forced to wait until after the US leaves Iraq if they can't go through SA.

The main reason why I believe Israel would not go through with an attack is that there is very little chance it will make their situation any better. But then again, I am feeling that Israel's pragmatism has been dwindling lately.

[Lamplighter]

It seems as long as Iran can keep the talking (diplomacy) going,
there is not sufficient motivation to react to threats of more UN sanctions.
But when Israel starts scurrying about it does get their attention.

Reuters
By Parisa Hafezi
Tue Nov 22, 2011
Iran misjudged West's resolve in nuclear standoff

It is unclear how Iran's hardline conservative leadership will act,
with hard calculation, national pride and Islamic outlook all part of the equation.
But senior officials have repeatedly hinted that diplomacy would be the first recourse.

"The regime is very worried about a military strike.
They have mishandled the issue and it is now very difficult for them to reach any kind of compromise,"
said a senior European diplomat in Tehran, who asked not to be named.
"Also they are worried about a spread of the Arab Spring (popular protests) into Iran
and cannot risk more economic pressure that can cause street protests."<snip>

However, a lack of stability in the Middle East, combined with Iran's
ability to stir up trouble in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan,
do weigh on Western policymakers' minds when contemplating
tougher action against Tehran, officials say.

"Their (Americans) hands are sufficiently tied down in the region ...
The American nation cannot tolerate another overseas military flashpoint,"
said an Iranian official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Iran can also draw comfort from the anti-sanctions posture of veto-wielding
Security Council members Russia and China, but by pursuing its confrontational stance
it may overplay its hand.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

That's what I've been hearing as well. It is pretty clear that Obama is against a pre-emptive attack on Iran so if Israel wanted to go through with it, they would have to go alone. That is why they are forced to wait until after the US leaves Iraq if they can't go through SA.

The problem with that thinking is that a counter attack by Iran would draw the US in by a MOU. Signed in 1968 and re-signed by Clinton and Netanyhau in 1998.