« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

When Israel Attacks Iran

Not If, But When

Not if, but when Israel attacks Iran’s nuclear sites is the premise of the Op-Ed piece by Benny Morris in the New York Times:

ISRAEL will almost surely attack Iran’s nuclear sites in the next four to seven months — and the leaders in Washington and even Tehran should hope that the attack will be successful enough to cause at least a significant delay in the Iranian production schedule, if not complete destruction, of that country’s nuclear program. Because if the attack fails, the Middle East will almost certainly face a nuclear war — either through a subsequent pre-emptive Israeli nuclear strike or a nuclear exchange shortly after Iran gets the bomb.

Every intelligence agency in the world believes the Iranian program is geared toward making weapons, not to the peaceful applications of nuclear power. And, despite the current talk of additional economic sanctions, everyone knows that such measures have so far led nowhere and are unlikely to be applied with sufficient scope to cause Iran real pain, given Russia’s and China’s continued recalcitrance and Western Europe’s (and America’s) ambivalence in behavior, if not in rhetoric. Western intelligence agencies agree that Iran will reach the “point of no return” in acquiring the capacity to produce nuclear weapons in one to four years.

Which leaves the world with only one option if it wishes to halt Iran’s march toward nuclear weaponry: the military option, meaning an aerial assault by either the United States or Israel. Clearly, America has the conventional military capacity to do the job, which would involve a protracted air assault against Iran’s air defenses followed by strikes on the nuclear sites themselves. But, as a result of the Iraq imbroglio, and what is rapidly turning into the Afghan imbroglio, the American public has little enthusiasm for wars in the Islamic lands. This curtails the White House’s ability to begin yet another major military campaign in pursuit of a goal that is not seen as a vital national interest by many Americans.

Which leaves only Israel — the country threatened almost daily with destruction by Iran’s leaders.

In the end Morris suggests that the Israeli conventional strike will not be enough dissuade the Iranians from their nuclear ambitions and that Israel will find itself compelled to nuke Iran’s nuclear sites.

Morris predicts Israel will strike within “the next four to seven months.” That would be just before or just after our presidential election, but before the next president takes office. Just imagine the impact a pre-election strike and the aftermath might have on the U.S. election.

Read the whole thing.

COMMENTS

  • Han_Pritcher

    I cannot fathom a strike, or series of strikes, that would completely end the Iranian program. Obviously one could hope that such a strike(s) would do sufficient damage to the infrastructure (and personnel) that it would buy sufficient time to do something else, something else that would end or prevent the completion of the program.

    It’s one hell of a roll of the dice. I could only endorse such an idea if not doing it was known to be riskier. I don’t think the window of opportunity to prevent this has closed yet. I fear it may do so soon.

    Every nation state has the right to defend itself. That doesn’t make every such action well advised or effective. The second and third order effects of such a strike could be incredibly painful for the Israelis.

    We can’t put the nuclear genie back in the bottle. All we can ever do is buy time. In the end, well, the knowledge is already out there. We must fight proliferation as hard and as well as we’re able, but it’s a war we will eventually lose. Frankly I think we lost it when Pakistan (and India) tested their weapons.

    I don’t see any perfect solution to this mess. I don’t know that there is one.

  • Alberta

    Israel just traded living terrorists for the bodies of her children. Israel is a country filled with humans. They are not animals, like the egyptians, lebanese, syrians, iranians, saudis, or the sudanese.

    Besides, do you really think an Olmert led government would attack iran? I dont.

    I think the model will be North Korea, with the West giving the iranian people to the tyrant imans and they in turn will give up nukes.

    • Cheetah772

      Enough of that.

      It’s time to play hardball with Iran. It’s 30 years too late. Iran wanted to be a big bully on the block, well, let it be so. That’s because Iran WANTED this. Iran CHOOSE this.

      Either put up or shut up. That’s it. No more playing nice guy with Iran. We’ve been doing it for 30 years, and all that brought us is lots of dead Americans in body bags. Just look at Iran’s latest proxy war with us in Iraq and for Israel in Lebanon. No more of that. It’s high time for serious payback.

      I’m tired of Iranians jerking our chain, it’s time to teach them a lesson or two. We need to strike back at Iran, we need to kill off its technical experts. We need to kill everything and everybody associated with Iranian nuclear program. We need to bomb its oil infrastructure.

      The truth is, the world has been feeding Iran by buying its oil. With oil revenues in its hands, Iran is able to continue developing its nuclear program. No more of that. It’s time to end Iran’s largest source of revenues.

      I think we’ve been playing diplomacy game far too long for our own good.

  • kathie

    I think that the Israeli’s would do better taking out the leadership. The Iranians are tired of the moral police.

    • Rod_Patrick

      i.e., bringing the nuke back into the bottle.

      As a slight difference, BO thinks that the nuke is not the same as the genie. Just watch his nuke ad.

      I am not really sure if BO is the nuke or the genie. But I’m pretty sure that he is the nuke genie that we must bring back into the bottle.

      • bbsci

        Oil supply problems are bad enough as it is, if we trash Iranian oil the world will suffer severely.

        I still think Iran is as rational as we are, and just as likely to use nuclear weapons. They want to obtain a bargaining chip, not to end the world. Then again, that’s just my take on things.

        • Vegas_Rick

          n/t

          • Cheetah772

            Furthermore, if Iran was really a rational state, then do pray tell me, why has it publicly called for Israel’s annihilation?

            So, no, Iran can’t be rational. It hasn’t made any rational decisions in the last 30 years.

          • Raven

            And I, for one, am not interested in the downside of being wrong.

            With the Russia-USA stand-off, the downside of the same position being wrong was everyone dies; and the upside of being right was that nearly everyone lives in a more peaceful world.

            With Iran, the downside is that a lot of people die and the world economy crashes as all mid-east oil production shuts down and a worldwide lust for Muslim blood completely wipes out that religion. Possibly the Jews as well, though that’s less likely. At the same time, the upside of being right is that we keep doing what we’re currently doing for however many more generations it takes the Iranians to clean up their own nation.

            In any case, there’s an easier way to break Iran and keep the oil flowing long enough to get our own production going: Seize Iran’s oil fields and refineries. Sell the oil and keep the money away from the Iranians.

            Oil is the only thing propping them up right now, take it away and down they go.

          • skey

            A possible answer is that having nukes takes any sort of invasion off of the table. Iran has to have noticed the ease with which we went through the Iraqi forces, forces that they essentially fought to a draw in the Iran/Iraq war.

            So as a survival strategy, they might see only two options:

            1. Not tick off the US enough to invade.
            2. Have nukes, rendering it basically impossible.

            1 is problematic, because politically they have to do things that will upset us, in order to stay in power.

            Now, I’m not saying that this is what they’re trying to do. Personally, if someone says repeatedly “I’m going to kill you” and then is visibly trying to gain the means to do so, I’d take them at their word. But #2 is at least plausible to me.

          • skey

            bah, sorry about the shouting. I didn’t realize a pound sign was a format specifier…