PDA

View Full Version : The danger of an Israeli strike on Iran


Richard
04-25-2009, 08:02
Complex issue here - who's bluffing...or not? :confused:

Richard's $.02 :munchin

The danger of an Israeli strike on Iran
Walt Rogers, CSM, 24 Apr 2009

The new Israeli prime minister recently appeared to give President Obama a blunt ultimatum: Stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons – or we will.

Benjamin Netanyahu's challenge (intimated in an interview he gave to The Atlantic magazine) smacks of unrealistic bravado and, worse, it appears to be a crude attempt to bully an American president into bombing Iran's nuclear installations.

The world should hope it's a hollow threat.

The consequences of a unilateral Israeli strike would be enormous if not disastrous. Mr. Obama cannot allow himself to be intimidated by Mr. Netanyahu, nor can he wink if the Israeli air force bombs Iran's nuclear facilities.

Israel has acted unilaterally to squash a perceived nuclear threat before. In 1981, Prime Minister Menachem Begin sent fighter jets to knock out Iraq's "Osirak" nuclear reactor. Israel claimed that Saddam Hussein was on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons and that it had no choice but to bomb it out of existence. In 2007, Israel bombed a facility in Syria it claimed was a nuclear reactor.

Any strike on Iranian reactors would be a different matter entirely. Osirak was a lone, poorly guarded, and inoperative nuclear plant that had a year earlier been damaged by an Iranian airstrike. The Iranians have taken considerable precautions to build their facilities on something more solid than desert sand. At present there is but one facility, Bushehr I, but Tehran is gearing up to build an entire network of nuclear plants. Israel would be bombing until the Shah comes home to merely delay what is an unstoppable Iranian nuclear program. :confused:

The fallout from Israel's strike on Osirak was serious but limited. But a preemptive strike on Iranian soil would border on catastrophic. Consider:

•Iran has signaled that if attacked, it would close the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of the world's oil flows. This would plunge the world into economic calamity.

•Hezbollah, Iran's proxy army in Lebanon, is believed to have more than 42,000 missiles, according to Defense Minister Ehud Barak – enough to make Israeli cities such as Haifa and Tel Aviv burn like London did during the Nazis' Blitz. Hezbollah is believed to have terror cells in Europe and North America. It has struck in South America, and many terrorism experts believe it is potentially even more dangerous than Al Qaeda. Iran, using this proxy force, would probably unleash it on the world if Netanyahu were to bomb the Bushehr I reactor.

•It would trigger a tsunami of anti-Semitism that would inevitably translate into violence against Jews worldwide.

•Such a strike would be perceived as further evidence of a US-Israeli global war on Islam. Islamist fighters from Marrakesh, Marseille, London, Cairo, Karachi, and Tehran would enlist overnight by the thousands and march to Iraq and Afghanistan to wage jihad against the American troops there.

Netanyahu is no fool. He is keenly aware of these global implications. He knows that a unilateral Israeli strike would not only accelerate Iran's nuclear ambitions but also legitimize them. He also knows that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's threat to wipe Israel off the map is bombast. It is the country's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, who commands the armed forces and national security apparatus, not the populist president.

Domestic Israeli politics may have been a factor motivating Netanyahu's warnings. Talking tough soothes anxieties at home. Equally likely, Netanyahu was prodding the new Obama government. And in that sense he may feel the recent US-led invitation to Tehran to meet with Washington and five other major powers to discuss the disputed nuclear program was a result of his threat. Iran has agreed to "constructive dialogue," although it may be delusional for the Israeli prime minister – or any other Western leader – to believe that political or economic pressure can sway Iran's ruling clerics.

What's worrying is that Netanyahu had a record of bad judgment in his previous term as prime minister from 1996 to 1999. Not without cause did The Economist run a cover photo of "Bibi" in October 1997 under the headline "Israel's Serial Bungler." It described his governance of the Jewish state as a "calamity" for the peace process.

Iran has no need to nuke Israel. Its ruling clerics, whom Netanyahu described as a "messianic apocalyptic cult," believe time, history, and Allah are on their side. They believe the Jewish state, starting across the border in Lebanon, can be nibbled to death over the next century just as the Arabs did to the Crusader kingdoms 600 years ago.

It should surprise no one that Iran's mullahs want nuclear weapons. They live in a nuclear neighborhood: Pakistan, India, Russia, China, and Israel, which is estimated to have 200 nuclear bombs ready to use if it were attacked. The ayatollahs also remember Mr. Hussein's 1991 folly of going to war with the US without nuclear weapons.

Obama needs to do Netanyahu a favor and tell the Israelis: "No first strike." Keep the F-15s and F-16s at home. A messianic vision such as Mr. Ahmadinejad's is rife in much of the Islamic world. Bellicose rhetoric most often serves as an excuse for inaction. It does not denote suicidal inclinations on the part of Iran's more pragmatic leaders.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20090424/cm_csm/yrodgers24web

Defender968
04-25-2009, 10:02
Interesting article, I can't say I agree with all or even most of the authors conclusions, and I'd like to know more about the author, where he's from, his background etc.

With all of the rhetoric that is constantly spewing out of Ahmadinejad's pie hole I don't think Israel can afford to just sit back and do nothing, nor do I think that negotiations with Iran will bear any fruit, which leaves very few options on the table.

Personally I think the likelihood of Iran launching a unilateral nuclear strike on Israel utilizing traceable missile is low, however I think the likelihood of them covertly transporting a small nuke to Israel and detonating it are significantly higher, either way I don't think Israel will cross their fingers and place their faith in "hope and change" to fix the situation.

I know that there are some politically sensitive issues with them using US made weaponry to attack Iran like the F-15s and F-16's and more importantly the armament that goes with them, but if Iran continues down the nuclear path, which all signs point to, Israel is going to act IMO, with or without our permission, because at the end of the day, they are going to act in their best interest.

greenberetTFS
04-25-2009, 10:26
Interesting article, I can't say I agree with all or even most of the authors conclusions, and I'd like to know more about the author, where he's from, his background etc.

With all of the rhetoric that is constantly spewing out of Ahmadinejad's pie hole I don't think Israel can afford to just sit back and do nothing, nor do I think that negotiations with Iran will bear any fruit, which leaves very few options on the table.

Personally I think the likelihood of Iran launching a unilateral nuclear strike on Israel utilizing traceable missile is low, however I think the likelihood of them covertly transporting a small nuke to Israel and detonating it are significantly higher, either way I don't think Israel will cross their fingers and place their faith in "hope and change" to fix the situation.

I know that there are some politically sensitive issues with them using US made weaponry to attack Iran like the F-15s and F-16's and more importantly the armament that goes with them, but if Iran continues down the nuclear path, which all signs point to, Israel is going to act IMO, with or without our permission, because at the end of the day, they are going to act in their best interest.

Defender968

You know your thinking is pretty much the same as mine.......;)

GB TFS :munchin

BigJimCalhoun
04-25-2009, 12:01
Odd how the article did not mention how the president of Iran has threatened to wipe Israel of the face of the map on many occasions.

hoepoe
04-25-2009, 12:35
Interesting article indeed.


Allegedly Israel has been quietly "dealing" with Iran for some time now; but this has only managed to delay things and not stop them.

I have just completed a book on the subject called "The Secret War with Iran" by Dr. Ronen Bergman that is a real eye opener and highly recommended.

Now, back to topic;
This answer is not about IDF bravado yadda yadda, rather about reality as i see it anyway.

I too think an attack on Iran will be disastrous for the region, but i am certain not attacking will be worse.

Regarding Israel/US relations, we're in a bit of a pickle; it's either really anger our Big Brother and best friend, or risk the real threat of annihilation. Tough call.

It's a lose lose situation, the question is how much we are going to lose and if we control it or them (Iran). Even if/when an attack on Iran is launched, there will be many many Israeli casualties; it will be very difficult on the nation and the homefront; no-one is under any illusions about it. Syria too will retaliate as will Hamas and Hezbollah so we will need to deal with these as well. I truly believe we can do, but it will not be easy, nor without massive losses, both military and civilian. I also think that the coalition troops in the ME will be attacked.

Indeed, tough times are ahead.

A few days back we remembered our 6 million that were murdered by the Nazi's; we vowed never again, and so we cannot sit by idly and let another Hitler destroy us. I do not think we will recover from that again.

H

TrapLine
04-25-2009, 13:02
Odd how the article did not mention how the president of Iran has threatened to wipe Israel of the face of the map on many occasions.


Actually, it is even worse, IMHO. The author mentions the threats and quickly dismisses them as "bombast." It sickens me to no end that the MSM glosses over the faults of our enemies while lambasting our own or allied leaders that do not toe the liberal line. I would like to see the response to Bibi calling for the complete annihilation of Iran. Sorry for the rant, I guess I should start looking for a beer and a seat near Billy L-bach to enjoy the apocalypse.

Sigaba
04-25-2009, 14:35
Interesting article, I can't say I agree with all or even most of the authors conclusions, and I'd like to know more about the author, where he's from, his background etc.


FYI

Source is here (http://www.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/rodgers.walter.html).

Walter Rodgers is senior international correspondent for CNN based in London. Named to this position in September 2000, he previously served as the CNN bureau chief in Jerusalem for five and a half years. He was also the ABC News bureau chief in Moscow for five years.

In the post-Sept. 11 world, Rodgers has traveled across central and southwestern Asia in pursuit of stories associated with the international fallout, including to Kabul, Afghanistan; Islamabad, Pakistan; Amman, Jordan; and Ankara, Turkey. During 2003's Operation Iraqi Freedom, Rodgers was one of CNN's 18 embedded journalists. He reported from the U.S. Army's 7th Cavalry as it rolled toward Baghdad. Rodgers used the phone and videophone to provide the latest reports, many during the cavalry's movement and some during intense fire. In October 2001, he also spent time aboard the USS Carl Vinson, sharing with viewers a rare look at life on an aircraft carrier.

Rodgers joined CNN in September 1993 and has more than 30 years experience as a broadcast journalist. He served longer in Jerusalem than any other CNN correspondent or bureau chief. Before that he was a correspondent in CNN's Berlin bureau. He has covered many major stories for this network, including Middle East Summit conferences, suicide bombings in Israel, the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, the war in former Yugoslavia, and the 1993 attempted coup d'etat in Moscow.

He joined CNN after 12 years with ABC News where he appeared regularly on ABC's World News Tonight. He has covered wars and seen combat in Lebanon in the 1980s, the Soviet War in Afghanistan and strife in Sarajevo, Kosovo, South Lebanon and the West Bank.

Rodgers joined ABC News in 1981, where he was a London-based correspondent until 1983. From 1984-1989, Rodgers worked as ABC News' Moscow bureau chief and correspondent. While in Moscow, he covered a wide range of stories originating from the Soviet Union, including the first four years of Mikhail Gorbachev's Glasnost and Perestroika programs; the deaths of former Soviet presidents Yuri Andropov and Konstantin Chernenko, the downing of Korean Airlines flight KAL 007, the Chernobyl nuclear disaster and the U.S. Embassy security and spy scandal.

He has covered every U.S.-Soviet presidential summit since the 1974 meeting between U.S. President Gerald Ford and the Soviet Union's Leonid Brezhnev, including the summits between Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev. Rodgers also covered the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination, the Iranian hostage story and some of the Watergate court proceedings in 1974. From 1981-1983, he covered the Falklands War and the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982.

In the United States, Rodgers covered the Farmington, W.Va., coalmine disaster and Republican, Democratic, and national governors' conferences in 1968. He was the first journalist to report that Jimmy Carter was ready to concede the 1980 election to Ronald Reagan before the polls closed. He also was in close proximity to Reagan during the assassination attempt in March 1981 and was among the first correspondents to break that story.

In addition to his work in broadcast journalism, Rodgers has written extensively for the Associated Press, The Washington Post, the Christian Science Monitor and Washingtonian Magazine.

Rodgers earned bachelor's and master's degrees in history from Southern Illinois University.

Mr. Rodgers wrote his master's thesis in 1964. The title is "Origins of the American tradition to subordinate military to civil power, 1776-1787." I don't have access to an abstract or the actual thesis. IMHO, the dates are interesting to say the least.

Information on Mr. Rodgers for a book signing in 2005 is here (http://news.siu.edu/news/September05/092805pr5140.jsp).

Mr. Rodgers taught a class at James Madison University in 2006 <<LINK (http://www.jmu.edu/jmuweb/general/news/general7288.shtml)>>.

I wonder about the 'international fall out' comment. Fall out for whom?:confused:

It is odd that Mr. Rodgers suggests that Israel should not defend its interests for fear of an uprising of anti-Judaism. Isn't global anti-Judaism a core value of the Islamic world?

uboat509
04-25-2009, 17:34
I think that another big factor in Israel not striking is purely economic. According to Haaretz.com (http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasen/spages/1021280.html)Israel's economy is not all that healthy and my be getting worse. Wars are expensive. With Democrats controlling the purse strings in the US, Israel cannot count on a big infusion of money if they were to attack without overt provocation, which the Iranian rhetoric, no matter how inflammatory, is not. Given how unpopular the bank bailouts are in this country, I can't see the notion of bailing out Israel being much more popular. On the other hand if Iran were to be the overt aggressor, then the US would have to react to support Israel. Iran knows that and I doubt that they are prepared for that. That's why the Iranian rhetoric is often dismissed as bombast.

SFC W

G
04-25-2009, 22:44
According to the book that Hoepoe mentioned, as well as numerous investigative reports in newspapers, there has been an intense effort by Israeli & Western security services over the past decade (or more) to prevent Iran from attaining nuclear capability. If Dr Bergmann is correct, those efforts have resulted in massive delays and setbacks for the Iranian programme.

Unfortunately setbacks and delays just buy time, they don't stop the programme.

There could be a range of consequences for Israel and the West generally if Iran attained nuclear weps capbility that the Walter Rodgers report doesn't address:

- Iran could take action like closing the Straits of Hormuz to leverage who-knows-what concessions from the West with no fear of retaliation because they are protected by their "nuclear shield".
- A nuclear armed Iran could make far greater use of Hizballah against Israel and / or the West without fear of retaliation.

Just two possibilities......a nuclear armed Iran could potentially behave pretty badly on the world stage without fear of any serious consequences. If Iran's behaviour since the revolution is anything to go by, I'd guess that it wouldn't suddenly become a model of good world citizenship.

Ultimately though, IMO, no Israeli government can sit on it's hands under the threat of nuclear genocide in the hope that the Iranian leadership don't mean what they say.

Just my 2c.

G

Box
04-26-2009, 19:08
...at the end of the day trouble is brewing for everyone.

Entebbe, Osirak, Lebanon... the Israeli's dont seem to spend as much time mulling over polling data or repositioning the teleprompters as the US government does....

If we dont have a plan on what to do WHEN the Israeli's gets nutty, we had better make one quick.

Its safe to assume Israel doesn't bluf when it comes to dealing with folks that want to push them into the sea.

The POTUS will only get one chance to do damage control on this one...
Emotional speeches about change ARE not going to calm the storm brewing right now. This is going to need some real leadership... not just smoke and mirrors.

charlietwo
04-27-2009, 05:41
My big concern in regards to an Israeli attack on Iran is the inevitable retaliation by sleeper cells around the world on major western targets.

If I were making wake-up signals, a major strike from a major enemy on a major ally would be all but a no-brainer to put in the playbook.

Now, my tougher question is which cities will be prepared?

hoepoe
04-27-2009, 06:21
My big concern in regards to an Israeli attack on Iran is the inevitable retaliation by sleeper cells around the world on major western targets.

If I were making wake-up signals, a major strike from a major enemy on a major ally would be all but a no-brainer to put in the playbook.

Now, my tougher question is which cities will be prepared?

This is indeed a concern, and a viable one but not a reason not to attack IMO.

H

redleg99
04-27-2009, 16:41
The fallout from Israel's strike on Osirak was serious but limited. But a preemptive strike on Iranian soil would border on catastrophic.

A report done by CSIS titled “Study on a Possible Israeli Strike on Iran’s Nuclear Development Facilities” outlines some additional “fallout.”

A link to the report was posted in this thread:
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=260430&postcount=9

I posted this excerpt in the other thread, but it might bear repeating here.
From page 90 of the report:

• Attacking the Bushehr Nuclear Reactor would release contamination in the form of radionuclides into the air.
• Most definitely Bahrain, Qatar and the UAE will be heavily affected by the radionuclides.
• Any strike on the Bushehr Nuclear Reactor will cause the immediate death of thousands of people living in or adjacent to the site, and thousands of subsequent cancer deaths or even up to hundreds of thousands depending on the population density along the contamination plume.

charlietwo
05-02-2009, 18:51
This is indeed a concern, and a viable one but not a reason not to attack IMO.

H

I completely agree. In my opinion, it is more of reason to attack. We just need to be prepared to catch them early as possible when retaliations occur over here.

Too bad Obama is playing checkers while everyone else is playing chess.