Has Israel Persuaded Washington?

Not likely. The source for this seems to be Der Spiegel, the German ultra leftie publication well known for it's absolute anti-American sentiment. It is anti-establishment, socialist, pro-appeasement, heavily spinning any story to further it's political conviction, and in my view not to be trusted.
CIA's Porter Goss decided to blurt out during his visit to Ankara that Turkey should be prepared for possible air assaults against Iran and Syria? Yeah right.

Power Line agrees with me: "Given our current commitment of forces to Iraq, it's hard to believe that a military strike against Iran is a realistic possibility, whether such a strike would be a good idea, in principle, or not."
Belgravia Dispatch: "I'd take all this with a massive grain of salt, and also point out that some of this leakage may be purposeful (so as to remind people in Teheran a military option does remain on the table, and so try to put a bit more muscle into the Euro-troika's languishing diplomatic efforts on Iranian non-proliferation). Also, Der Spiegel, shall we say, has a tendency to engage in hyperbole when it comes to journalistic narratives about the rampant militarization of U.S. foreign policy and such."
AMERICAblog: "Should get interesting when 350,000 Irani army members come swarming across the boarder into Iraq as a counterpunch."
And of course this for me seals it: TalkLeft: "What a way to end the year. Where is the U.S. media on this?" Really.
Ed Morrissey @ Captain's Quarters: "Having given Israel an almost perfect excuse for a pre-emptive attack, the Germans think that George Bush won't pass up the opportunity to join them. The DDP quoted a high-ranking German military officer as saying that an attack would have to happen before Iran develops its nuclear weapon, and that window appears to be closing fast. Along with a series of high-level meetings in Turkey between American and Turkish diplomats and military planners, it looks like something may soon be afoot regarding Iran. And oddly enough, although Der Spiegel doesn't mention it in their article, one of the clearest indicators may be Teheran's sudden reversal on the Russian offer to process their uranium for the Iranians. Until this week, Iran rejected the offer outright, saying that Iran had a sovereign right to process their own uranium for peaceful purposes. Without much explanation, though, the Iranians changed course this week and endorsed the Russian proposal in concept while asking for clearer details on the Russian plan.

In other words, it looks like everyone has suddenly understood that the Americans have taken over the game plan on Iran, as quietly as possible under the circumstances. The question remains what we intend to do with Teheran to block their acquisition of nuclear weapons and end Iranian provocations of Israel."

Iran's soon-to-be successful push for atomic weapons, not the Iraq war, will be the global hot potato of 2006. All diplomatic efforts to dissuade Tehran from going nuclear have predictably failed. Russia is not going to pull this radioactive chestnut out of the fire, either, even though members of the Bush Administration still pretend it will.

The prospect of Iran's having a nuclear capability is especially frightening because its new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is lethally delusional. He is obsessed with the Mahdi (who is to return just before Judgment Day) and believes he must prepare the way for his reappearance. Ahmadinejad has repeatedly declared that the Holocaust never took place and that Europe and the U.S. should provide some of their own land for a Jewish state. Israel itself should be wiped off the map.

Last month Iran cut a deal with Russia to buy an advanced weapons system that can destroy incoming missiles and laser-guided bombs. Russia also helped Iran launch a satellite that could give early warning of an air attack against Iranian nuclear facilities. Today the plan seems to have been rejected by Iran.

For Iran's black-robed fascists to develop nuclear weapons would be an immense setback in the war against Islamic fanaticism. It would embolden terrorists. Tehran would see itself in a position to encourage the overthrow of the Saudi monarchy--or, at the least, bend it to its will. Is military action the only alternative? Yes, unless somehow internal Iranian pressures (the mullahs are despised by most Iranians), as well as international pressures, force either a fundamental change in this fascist theocracy or its actual overthrow. Iraq's impressive progress since mid-2004 in building an economy in which new businesses are proliferating, property prices are rapidly rising, new schools and hospitals are opening, and a new democratic political order is under way can only undermine the mullahs, who preside over a sick economy kept alive solely by the oil windfall. But time is running short.

And I have been saying that for some time now. See all my related posts below.

Look if the information has indeed been 'leaked' about the Special Forces missions, it is by choice of the Administration. Not a bad thing in view of the fact that we need to show that we are serious, and that The President will not allow Iran to go nuclear. But why go to NATO and not The Security Council? I can only assume that if concensus is required the latter is pretty much a no go for any force against Iran.

Protein Wisdom: "Seems unlikely on it’s face, but at the same time, President Bush has been adamant that he will not allow Iran nuclear weapons, and it seems plausible that even our NATO allies see limited military action as the only option for stopping them at this point.
Of course, if we’re hearing about it, Iran is certainly hearing about it—so we could be witnessing the beginning of a more orchestrated hardline stance toward Iran that circumvents the (increasingly irrelevant) UN Security Council altogether.
Which makes sense, given that China and Russia wouldn’t even back sanctions."

Related posts @ ATB: If Israel Is The Tumor Then Iran Is The Metastasizing Cancer Part I 
If Israel Is The Tumor Then Iran Is The Metastasizing Cancer Part II
Extraction Of The Stone Of Iranian Madness 

More @ Dean's World, Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, A Daily Briefing on Iran, Pajamas Media  , The Political Pit Bull

Comments

[John Wilkins]

Hi Alexandra. I thought that Speigel was a conservative publication, but that was a few years ago.

What happens if Iran does get nuclear weapons? Why should we assume they would use them? If anything, nuclear weapons have made the world much safer - at least India and Pakistan are quibbling a lot less.

My own worry is that Iran's excitement about nuclear power is going to be the way to silence the Iranian internal opposition. Patriotism is a good way to bring enemies together. On the other hand, Iranian peaceniks aren't likely to be malleable by the US. For example, most of the Indian anti-nuke people are very leftist....

[sigmund, carl and alfred]

lots of conventional wisdom out there, on what is clearly an unconventional situation.

It just seems inconceivable that Iran will be allowed to aquire nuclear weapons. Further, it seems as if a President that has taken a stand on everything, would choose not to take one now.

The story is far from over.

[Darrell]

It's shouldn't surprise anyone(although it apparently does)that our military and our government prepares detailed plans to handle all contingencies--most anything you can imagine. It's been this way since at least WWII. The Carter Administration seemed to be particularly interested in space aliens, for example. Someone must have seen "Close Encounters of The Third Kind." Michael Crichton touches on this in his novel "Sphere," for those interested. Sometimes it goes as far as selecting actual teams to concentrate on that particular area. Der Speigel's "scoop" is hardly worth mentioning. It would be more of a story if we didn't have a detailed plan in place. Don't we expect our military to do its job?