Obama – Netanyahu “Fallout” is Theater – Planned in 2009

In 2009 the Brookings Institute authored a US policy paper titled (pdf) "Which path to Persia? Options for a New American Century toward Iran"

The paper discusses multiple options that the US or the Israelis can use to justify an attack on Iran. One such option would be to offer a 'superb deal,' one so good that only a regime trying to acquire nuclear weapons would turn down.

Excerpt:

"Any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context— both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal."

So, it would appear as if the theater we've witnessed between Netanyahu the President and Congress is on course as the deadline for negotiations looms. If the negotiations fail, will it be used as a pretext for invasion, by citing the refusal on Iran's part for failure to accept a peaceful solution or is it just mere coincidence?

Obama -- Netanyahu "fallout" is Theater -- Planned in 2009

I think the OP may be spot-on. I'm so glad my son left active duty. Three tours in the Middle East 'bout turned me and my wife gray.

As soon as the word 'inevitable' can be used to define action ... expect it. This has been coming for a long time. They better be glad GEN Mattis retired.

Let me add: These are the kinds of threads that I enjoy the most on ATS, and ultimately got me to sign up as a posting member. S&F

Just the most recent incarnation. Grandson of Iran-Contra. Son of PNAC.

Also of interest is Israel’s habitual, belligerent, serial acts of inhumanity against both its own people and the Palestinians whose land Tel Aviv has seized and continues to occupy. The nature of these acts is not one of self-preservation, but of intentional provocation – creating predictable political divides across the West easily manipulated particularly at times like these where a “regrettable” attack made upon Iran, a nation the West has thus far failed to topple with terrorism, US-backed sedition, sanctions, and covert provocations, is now in the cards.

ETA: Wouldn't matter which president was in office either. All that requires is a different play from the playbook.

I'm still of the opinion that the neo cons guide into Iran is contingent upon reaching a deal.

From the OP:

"Any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context— both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal."

As seen in this excerpt, reaching a good deal is paramount in concluding a way into Iran.