Decision ‘08

Israel Hints About Iranian Strike

Off the record and possibly just random boasting, but significant, nonetheless:

Israel is carefully watching the world’s reaction to Iran’s continued refusal to suspend uranium enrichment, with some high-level officials arguing it is now clear that when it comes to stopping Iran, Israel “may have to go it alone,” The Jerusalem Post has learned.

One senior source said on Tuesday that Iran “flipped the world the bird” by not responding positively to the Western incentive plan to stop uranium enrichment. He expressed frustration that the Russians and Chinese were already saying that Iran’s offer of a “new formula” and willingness to enter “serious negotiations” was an opening to keep on talking.

“The Iranians know the world will do nothing,” he said. “This is similar to the world’s attempts to appease Hitler in the 1930s - they are trying to feed the beast.”

He said there was a need to understand that “when push comes to shove,” Israel would have to be prepared to “slow down” the Iranian nuclear threat by itself.

Having said this, he did not rule out the possibility of US military action, but said that if this were to take place, it would probably not occur until the spring or summer of 2008, a few months before President George W. Bush leaves the international stage. The US presidential elections, which Bush cannot contest because of term limits, are in November 2008.

Remember, there is a precedent…

6 Responses to “Israel Hints About Iranian Strike”

1 LJ Says:
August 23rd, 2006 at 10:54 pm
Osirak is meaningless here, Mark. We don’t know where most of the Iranian nuclear facilities are (whereas the Israelis only had to bomb one site in Iraq, Iran has 70 sites). The House Intelligence Committee came out with a report just today that says that our overall HUMINT resources inside Iran are horrible. And even if we had stellar intel, attacking the nuke sites alone would only make Iran retaliate against US forces in Iraq and unleash Hezbollah on Israel once again. We don’t have nearly enough forces to go to war against Iran. This would be suicide.
2 Mark Says:
August 23rd, 2006 at 11:17 pm
Oh, I agree, it’s a much tougher nut to crack. Your points are all very well taken, particularly the difficult of taking out the facilities - if not the impossiblity.

Still, I suppose Israel would say, if we can’t get ‘em all, we can set ‘em back 5 years…
3 LJ Says:
August 23rd, 2006 at 11:42 pm
Yeah, that is a likely Israeli response. But after their disastrous performance against Hezbollah, I don’t know how much faith I have in the IDF. Their air force would have to fly (and refuel) over Iraq to hit Iran and to do so would need approval of Bush. So we’d be backing them and Iran would still claim justification to attack the coalition in Iraq and block the Strait of Hormuz to block any US Navy reinforcements. In that case, why not just do the bombing ourselves? That’s why I don’t think that the Bush Administration would give Israel the go ahead to launch an attack.

Also, I should point out that Hezbollah, while being the best armed and trained terrorist group in the world, is one of the only ones in the Middle East that aren’t targeting Americans (anymore). Hezbollah already has operatives in this country raising money for the group, what’s to say that they don’t have sleeper cells set to activate in the event of an American or Israeli attack on Iran?

This is why I’m so pessimistic regarding Iran. We will continue to negotiate and they will offer openings here and there, which will cause even more negotiation. But ultimately there is nothing we can offer them to stop enriching uranium. They are in the ultimate position of strength. They know we won’t move militarily against them. Within a couple of years, they’ll get a nuke and then all bets are off…
4 too many steves Says:
August 24th, 2006 at 7:32 am
For all the reasons you cite, combined with the duplicity of China and Russia during the diplomatic effort made through the UN (their financial ties and interests with Iran are too great to overcome), and the UN’s (Koffi’s, at least) public lack of sympathy and expressed animosity toward Israel, I have decided that a nuclear armed Iran is a foregone conclusion.

We don’t have the knowledge to mount an attack. We don’t have the resources, in theater, to close the knowledge gap. Bush lacks the political capital, if not will, to act - he will need the support, if not their formal approval, of Congress. He is fast approaching the official lame duck stage of his presidency (11/12/06).

Purely from a negotiating point of view, Iran is right to refuse to give up enrichment - it is their only point of leverage.

Nuclear Iran: done deal.
5 Mark Says:
August 24th, 2006 at 8:58 am
There was a piece in a recent Atlantic Monthly (sorry, no link) that pretty much reached the same conclusion as you, but put the best face on it by saying we contained the USSR, and we’ll just have to try to do the same with Iran…
6 Dmac Says:
August 24th, 2006 at 10:48 am
“Iran would still claim justification to attack the coalition in Iraq and block the Strait of Hormuz to block any US Navy reinforcements…”

They threatened to do this a few years ago, and sent their infantile fleet out to confront our task force in the Hormuz, as a test of our strength - they quickly turned back after a few aircraft carrier sorties buzzed them. Simply put, not gonna happen, not ever - unless they’re dying to see their toyboat navy annihilated in the space of 30 seconds.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1621693/posts

OTOH, we could at least try a naval blockade, since that would serverely disrupt their supply of gasoline.