Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
The reason I can generally agree with Rex, is that I do not actually agree with the blockade. I absolutely understand it, but I do not see it as an effective instrument of policy - which it clearly is not.
I think the blockade is poorly implemented, for reasons that Rex points out (the arbitrary nature of the specific restrictions), but the concept of "A" blockade seems sound to me. In particular, it seems like a continued blockade would serve a useful purpose for Israel. What I am thinking of, specifically, was articulated well by Galrahn at Information Dissemination (below). What do you think?

Quote Originally Posted by Galrahn at Information Dissemination
... there is a cynical alternative that does merit mentioning. It has been suggested that further isolation of Israel by the United States would give greater flexibility to Israel for undertaking unilateral military action by Israel against Iran. That isolation would need to be more than just the NPT discussions that force Israel to disclose their nuclear arsenal, and more than just a diplomatic disagreement regarding the use of UN sanctions against Iran’s nuclear program. This event would seem to be in line with creating additional political separation between Israel and the US needed for Israel to act unilaterally. Time will tell, but a brute force response to the second flotilla could easily give President Obama the flexibility he needs to create additional political separation from Israel on the US end.

I'm not really a subscriber of this point of view, but I do agree further political separation between Israel and the US right now would give Israel more flexibility to unilaterally attack Iran, and as the Danger Room article notes - Israel went into this flotilla operation understanding the infowar unfolding. Israel never plays expecting to lose something for nothing, suggesting something bigger may be at work here.
I am cynical enough to lend this more weight than Galrahn does.