An Israeli Defense Minister and former Israeli Mossad agent who is now a “security consultant” were both in the news today, and both continue Israel’s under the radar war drum beating campaign in the international media. First up Erud Barak:

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak says Israel is determined to use ‘any option’ to stop Iran’s nuclear program should sanctions fail.

In a Wednesday interview with Al Jazeera television, Barak said while there is still time for diplomatic measures against Iran’s nuclear program, other countries should not remove ‘any option’ from the table, an allusion to the military option. […]

“The time is still for diplomacy and sanctions, but much more effective sanctions. We keep saying that we do not remove any option from the table. I propose to others not to remove any option from the table as well. But when we say it, we mean it,” Barak said.

According to Pentagon officials, Israel conducted a military maneuver over the eastern Mediterranean and Greece in early June in preparation for a war on Iran.

Far more specific was Juval Aviv a former Mossad agent whose claim that he led a team to track down and assassinate the Palestinian terrorists responsible for the slaughter of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Munich was made into a Steven Spielberg movie. Now the head of an independent security firm based in New York, he was presented to various groups of Australian officials by independent Jewish organizations this week to publicly claim that Israel is already set on launching attacks against 3 out of 12 possible nuclear sites in Iran before Bush leaves office:

Among many bald statements, one stuck out: Israel is now ready to destroy three or four nuclear sites out of 12 in Iran.

“I believe that Israel is planning to act on these reactors before Bush leaves the White House,” Mr Aviv said. “We’ve got to take a chance … the next president of America may not allow it.” […]

He may or may not be speaking for anyone but himself, but his sponsorship suggests Australian opinion-makers were being warmed up for an Iran strike. If so, it’s an unsatisfactory level of discussion, and surely cannot reflect policy debate in a nation as sophisticated as Israel.

Bluster? Cheap talk? I don’t know. But frightening all the same. And the current French President, Nicolas Sarkozy is doing his best to ramp up the warmongering talk, as well.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy warned Iran yesterday it was taking a dangerous gamble in seeking to develop nuclear weapons because one day its archfoe Israel could strike. […]

“Iran is taking a major risk in continuing the process to obtain a military nuclear capacity,” Sarkozy said at a meeting in Damascus with the leaders of Syria, Turkey and Qatar.

“One day, whatever the Israeli government, we could find one morning that Israel has struck,” Sarkozy added.

“The question is not whether it would be legitimate, whether it would be intelligent. What will we do at that moment? It would be a catastrophe. We must avoid that catastrophe,” Sarkozy said in comments broadcast on television.

Dangerous words to be bantering about for public discusssion. And frankly I don’t see Iran’s leaders backing down. Such talk only enhances their domestic political situation, since it deflects discussion of their poor economic performance with the threat of war and the generation of patriotic feelings among the Iranian populace, feelings which always seem to benefit the government in power. The longer these threats and counter-threats continue, the more likely, it seems to me, that Israel and the Bush administration will feel compelled to act, especially if Obama maintains a lead in the polls.

Chance of any media in the United States actually reporting these allegations to the American public during an election campaign. Virtually nil. But it should be a topic on the front burner. At the very least, any Israeli strike on Iran will send oil prices into the stratosphere, likely triggering a global economic meltdown. Before we reach that point, I’d like to think that cooler heads will prevail. But this is the Bush administration we are talking about.

It’s time for prominent Democrats to speak up against any attack on Iran. Which means Obama, Biden, Pelosi and Reid (and maybe both Clintons, as well). Past time actually. Unfortunately, Obama’s performance in his interview with O’Reilly doesn’t give me a lot of comfort.

(cont.)

O’REILLY: But I still don’t understand — and I’m asking this as an American as well as a journalist — how threatening you feel Iran is? Look, if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, OK, to me, they’re going to give it to Hezbollah if they can develop the technology. Why not? And they’ll say, “Well, we didn’t have anything to do with it.”

So therefore, the next president of the United States is going to have to make a decision about Iran, whether to stop them militarily, because I don’t believe — if diplomacy works, fine, but you’ve got to have a Plan B, and a lot of people say, “Look, Barack Obama is not going to attack Iran.”

OBAMA: Here’s where you and I agree. It is unacceptable for Iran to possess a nuclear weapon. It would be a game changer, and I’ve said that repeatedly. I’ve also said I would never take a military option off the table.

O’REILLY: But would you prepare for one?

OBAMA: Well, listen…

O’REILLY: That’s the question though, senator. Anybody can say option. Would you prepare for it?

OBAMA: Look, it is not appropriate for somebody who is one of two people who can be the president of the United States to start tipping their hand in terms of what their plans might be with respect to Iran. It’s sufficient to say I would not take the military option off the table and that I will never hesitate to use our military force in order to protect the homeland and United States’ interests.

But where I disagree with you is the notion that we’ve exhausted every other resource, because the fact of the matter is that, for six, seven years, during this administration, we weren’t working as closely as we needed to do with the Europeans to create…

O’REILLY: Diplomacy might work. You might be able to sanction economically.

OBAMA: …sanctions.

O’REILLY: Maybe.

OBAMA: Maybe.

O’REILLY: But that’s all hypothetical.

OBAMA: Everything is hypothetical, but the question is, are we trying to do what we need to do to ratchet up the pressure on them, to change their…

O’REILLY: OK. We’ll assume you’re going to ratchet everything you can ratchet. But I’m going to assume that Iran is going to say, “Blank you. We’re going to do what we want.” And I want a president, whether it’s you or McCain, who says, “You ain’t doing that.”

That strikes me as a very weak response. He can, and should have done better. Because if he doesn’t he may come into office with another war to contend with, and an economic crisis that will make us nostalgic for our current situation.