Two things surprise me about this. First, I'm astonished that it has taken this long.
Knesset Probed For Pre-Empt Support
And second, I can't determine a purpose for this public action.
Usually something simply happens when Israel has their back to the wall.
14 comments:
One last warning perhaps? to Us?
Well, we all know that the Iranians will be moving a lot farther north and closer to Israel real soon. I'll be surprised if they wait until we're all out of Iraq first.
What does Israel know that we don't? The UN cannot be trusted to accurately guage where the Iranians are in their nuclear weapons program. I wonder what the Israeli security services know. The thing I found oddest was the discussion being public. Perhaps an effort to goad us into action?
I have zero problem if Israel attacks Iran over the nuclear issue. However to be succesful they will need to pull a rabbit out of a hat like they did in '67.
Just not seeing that with the equipment Israel s known to have.
~Leadfoot
You've got to get out more Lead. Review Osirik. Or maybe Syria 2009 when the air defense system went dark and a site under construction became a large excavation suddenly.
Rd, quite aware of Osirak and Syria. Iran is just a tad out of range and target information may be a problem also. Unless Israel plans to lose both aircrews and planes on one way missions. I do not see this mission as a success. Of course nuclear armed Jericho missiles are a possibility but that would make israel the second nation since Hiroshima. They need to think long and hard on using nukes.
if you want to expand on the Israeli airpower options I am all ears however to you expertise. I do not see ground, seapower or cyber working for Israel as options.
~leadfoot
Leadfoot,
I don't think Israel can afford to be the third country to use nuclear weapons. Hence, my earlier comment that the publicity, IMHO, is directed towards us to take action.
I've long expected and would cheer for an all out Israeli action to put Iran and its puppets in their place I've been appalled at how this administration has treated all f our historic allies but most of all Israel.
As for the Israel Nuke option, Im thinking better to seek forgiveness than to try to get permission from a corrupted monstrosity such as the UN.
Lead,
Israel has a few organic tankers in their force. There is a more than reasonable chance that Saudi may wish to support such an operation. Forward basing cooperation, supplemental sweeps of counter-air (although the IIAF threat is not significant), and RSAF tankers are possible options.
If you are talking conventional strike, that takes more forces, but the IAF is very capable and has demonstrated it. If you are talking about instant sunshine, it doesn't take very much. Single aircraft is adequate. F-15E and the Israeli conformal tanked F-16 would work. If you delay until after the IIAF is nuke capable the entire scenario changes for the worse with regard to Israel.
Ed:
The Israeli bombing mission in Syria was actually in September 2007, not in 2009.
I get the sense that the Saudis may be willing to privately pay Israel to deal with Iran.
There are no "good" options left.
Iran is going to do their best to be able to detonate a demo nuke before January of 2013, just so they can make sure that the most anti-Israel administration in history is still in place after the fact. If they can't do this until after Obama's replacement takes office - unless is is Ron Paul, which seems very unlikely - then there is a much better chance of a joint U.S.-Israeli strike, post Obama.
I have no doubt that Israel is doing everything she can in 'cloak and dagger' terms to push a do-or-die overt strike decision past Jaunuary of 2013, to include cyber attacks and other mischief. But this can only slow down Iran, not stop them. Look at North Korea; they reportedly have a few nukes (though their test back in '06 may have been a dud). North Korea is a poor country, has nothing to sell (except weapons and missile technology to Guess Who), and was subject to an enormous effort short of overt attack to stop them. It didn't work.
So, I am fairly certain of five things:
1. It would have been a lot better if they'd been dealt with back in '08. As bad as Obama is - and he is terrible, no doubt - we must all recall that Netanyahu's predecessor, Olmert, was screaming for Bush to provide him with tankers and bunker busters so he could do the job then. Bush refused (probably due to the influence of Bob Gates, who later went on to work for Obama...go figure...).
2. Now that Iran has had three more years to harden her defenses, this is going to be a very hard and messy job. It may not be possible for Israel to really shut down the Iran nuke program without at least using tactical nukes of her own. She will certainly lose planes and pilots, operating over such great distances. She'll pay that price in the face of this existential threat, for sure, but I only hope it can really be pulled off. Iran may not be as strong as she makes herself out to be, but she ain't Syria, and she ain't Iraq, either. We're talking a country the size of Alaska with some 70 million people, who fought Iraq to a standstill over an eight-year bloody war with practically no outside support. Again, this may be doable, but this will be by far the biggest challenge ever tackled by the IDF.
3. An Israeli strike on Iran will touch off a major regional war. Hamas, Hezbollah, etc., will join the fray for sure. Israel will suffer worse in terms of civilian casualties and property damage in her interior and major cities than she ever has before. This will be very, very ugly.
4. I can't say one way or the other if Israel can really shut down the Iran nuke program. But whatever she suffers from her enemies on her frontiers, she'll give way better than she gets. Hezbollah and the others are in no position to confront the IDF and expect to win as we understand this term. Here, it will be 1967 all over again, only even worse for the bad guys. In a way, Obama's policies do Israel a favor in a perverse sense: Since Israel knows going in that she isn't getting U.S. support, she's got nothing to lose, and the gloves are really off this time....just like '67.
5. Obama will not, repeat, NOT aid Israel in such a strike. The most he will do is order the U.S. military to react and contain any Iranian moves against Western interests in the Persian Gulf, all the while publicly lambasting Israel for her "reckless disregard for the interests and well-being of her American ally"...as gas prices shoot up to $7/gal. Israel is on her own, make no mistake about that.
Obama actually wants the threat of a nuclear Iran to be around, so as to use that as leverage against Israel so as to force her to cave to the PA's demands. He's openly putting Israel at risk for a nuclear holocaust, just so he can "do right" by the Palestinian thugs.
Robman,
Yesterday the Guardian reported that the UK is actively planning the mission and the US is onboard. Here's one access through the Jerusalem Post but the meat is at the Guardian:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2801675/posts
Ed,
That's pretty interesting, though I'm not sure what the UK would contribute. They were stretched pretty thin just with Libya. As I'm sure you've noted since your post above, SecDef Panetta was just in Israel, seeking assurances that Israel would consult with the U.S. before carrying out any strike. He failed to get said assurances.
This could be a big political game, a "good cop/bad cop" dynamic, meant to confuse the Iranians. I allow that. There is certainaly no love lost between Iran and the UK. But given Obama's overall performance, and in particular, his tepid reaction to the Iranian anti-regime revolt back in the summer of '09, it is very hard for me to see, between British material weakness and Obama's moral weakness, substantial basis for the claims of the UK Guardian.
Maybe I'm wrong. I hope so.
Post a Comment