November 9, 2011, 9:07 AM
| Comments (14) | | |
 |
| |  |
Over the past week, there has been an avalanche of news reports in the Israeli and Western media about the possibility of an imminent Israeli or American strike on Iran's nuclear installations. These reports were triggered by a report on Iran's nuclear program set to be published by the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency later this week.
According to the media, the IAEA's report will deal a devastating blow to Iran's persistent claims that its illegal nuclear program is "peaceful." Specifically, the IAEA report is expected to divulge information about Iran's efforts to develop and test components that have no plausible use other than the production of nuclear weapons. These activities include experimentation with triggers used only for detonating nuclear weapons, and the development of missile warheads capable of carrying nuclear weapons. They also include the design of computer simulation programs to test nuclear weapons.
Most nuclear experts claim that Iran currently has sufficient quantities of enriched uranium to produce four or five nuclear weapons. They also claim that it will take Iran another three years to develop a fullblown nuclear arsenal. Finally, Israeli and Western sources claim that in light of Iran's bid to develop hardened, underground nuclear sites, its nuclear installations will be immune to ballistic missile attacks or aerial bombing within a year.
Confronting Iran's rapidly developing nuclear capabilities, Israeli hawks and doves are united in their view that Israel's preferred option is for the US rather than the IDF to launch a military strike to destroy Iran's nuclear installations. This view is reasonable because the US has the military capabilities to destroy Iran's nuclear program completely and do so with minimal risk to America's international prestige and position.
Moreover, if the US, rather than Israel attacks Iran's nuclear installations, Israel will be able to devote all of its own resources to fending off missile and ground assaults from Iran's proxy regimes in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria. Between them, Hamas, Hezbollah and Syrian President Bashar Assad have some 100,000 missiles aimed at Israel. For the past two years Hizbullah has been planning a ground offensive against northern Israel in conjunction with a missile offensive. Syria has chemical weapons.
If as expected, Iran unleashes these forces in response to a strike on its nuclear installations, the IDF will have its hands full.
As for the option of an Israeli strike on Iran, assuming a tactical nuclear strike is not under consideration, Israel probably lacks the ability to completely destroy Iran's nuclear facilities on its own. Unlike the US, Israel would have to limit any operation in Iran to destroying the most dangerous Iranian nuclear facilities while leaving others untouched.
THE LIMITED nature of an Israeli strike could enable Iran to rebuild its nuclear capabilities. If so, Israel would likely need to launch another strike later on.
Unlike the US, Israel would have no international coalition to fight with. Jerusalem would face the unpalatable prospect of being condemned for its action by UN and other international bodies, including by states that would quietly support it.
Most importantly, given the likelihood that Iran's proxies would launch a new round of aggression against Israel in response to a strike on its nuclear installations, Israel would be beset by a multi-front war at a time when much of its Air Force and perhaps other strategic assets are out of the country.
Against this backdrop, it makes sense to assume that reports of current Israeli preparations for a strike against Iran are less indications of an imminent strike than an Israeli attempt to send messages to two target audiences. First, Israel is signaling Iran that it has the capacity to strike its nuclear installations. Second, Israel is signaling the Obama administration that it is time for Washington to get serious about preparing a military operation to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, lest Israel be forced to act on its own.
There are some indications that even without Israeli maneuvering some Obama administration officials have finally awoken to the dangers. On Sunday The New York Times reported that the administration's assessment that it can contain a nuclear-armed Iran in much the same way the US contained the Soviet Union "took a hit," after Iran's plan to penetrate terror operatives into the US through the Mexican border was revealed. The thwarted Iranian plan to use terrorists brought in from Mexico to stage spectacular terror attacks against Israeli and Saudi targets in Washington taught administration officials that Iran continues to view terrorism as a strategic tool. They finally realized that it is impossible to rule out the possibility that Iran would use terror proxies to transfer and detonate nuclear bombs in third countries. And their inability to rule out this prospect placed their previous conviction that they can contain a nuclear Iran in serious question.
Unfortunately, from statements to the media last week by a senior US military source, it appears that the administration's belated recognition that Iran is more comparable to Nazi Germany than to Stalinist Russia does not mean that they are interested in actually doing anything to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.
Speaking to reporters in Washington a senior US military official said that the US continues to view the prospect of an Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear installations as just as problematic as a nuclear armed Iran. As he put it, the US is "absolutely" concerned about a potential Israeli attack, and "increasingly vigilant" with regard to activities in both Israel and Iran that could indicate military intentions.
THE OBAMA administration's stubborn refusal to acknowledge the obvious fact that a nuclear armed Iran constitutes a far greater danger to US interests than an Israeli military strike to deny Iran nuclear capabilities is in line with the administration's consistent refusal to treat Israel as an ally. Its unserious handling of Iran is of a piece with its gentle policies towards Hamas and Hezbollah, its refusal to call Fatah on its bad faith, its blindness to the threat emanating from Islamist movements in Turkey and North Africa, and its consistent pressure on Israel to appease its enemies. The administration's apparent antipathy for Israel has played a significant role in causing it to underestimate the threat that all these forces pose not only to Israel but to the US and to international security in general.
And Israel is not the US's only Middle Eastern ally that has suffered from its strategic myopia. Iran's pro- American Green Movement was betrayed by Obama's decision to side with the regime against the Green Movement in 2009. Iraq's pro-American political forces will be harmed if not destroyed in the aftermath of the administration's planned withdrawal of US forces from Iraq.
Then there are the Sunnis. Under Obama, the US betrayed its most important Arab ally when it called for then-Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak to resign in response to the anti-regime demonstrations in Cairo. America is supporting the Muslim Brotherhood takeover of Tunisia, Libya and Egypt. It supports the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated, Turkish organized Syrian opposition to Assad's regime. It upholds Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his Islamist, anti-Semitic and anti-Western regime as the US's greatest regional ally.
With its dismal track record, it is far from clear that Israel is well-served by pressuring the Obama administration to take action against Iran. On Sunday, British military commentator Con Coughlin noted in the Sunday Telegraph that in recent years, the "only measures that have had any demonstrable effect on slowing Iran's nuclear progress have been undertaken by Israel, via a skillful combination of targeted assassinations and cyber-warfare."
So Israel's low-key, tactical operations against Iran have been effective while all of Obama's high-profile strategic operations have empowered Israel's enemies.
True, Obama has not yet taken any operational steps to attack Iran's nuclear installations. But the dire implications of his track records cannot be ignored.
At least until the US presidential elections next year, Israel's best bet may be to simply step up its covert efforts to sabotage Iran's nuclear program.
The goal of these efforts should be to slow down Iran's nuclear progress sufficiently to prevent it from developing a nuclear arsenal or moving its nuclear project to hardened locations until after the US presidential elections.
In the meantime, Israel should continue to develop its independent capacity to attack Iran. It should also take military action to weaken Iran's terror proxies in order to limit their capacity to wage war against Israel in the aftermath of an eventual, post-presidential election Israeli or US strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.
Obviously, it would be a mistake to assume that Obama will lose his reelection bid. But even if he wins, as a lame duck, second term president, he will have less power to harm Israel than he will as a first term president poised for reelection.
Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.
| Comments (14) | | |
|
"Obviously, it would be a mistake to assume that Obama will lose his reelection bid." Obama, subliminally - if not consciously - a Moslim and such an obvious product of his deeply anti-Semitic church that only a dunce can fail to see this, is implacably hostile to Israel. The most recent, September, survey shows 53% of American Jews supporting Obama. With such family members who needs enemies.
Caroline. There is no question if we are to judge by the remarks that were made "purposely" within hearing of the international media that the Obama administration has little if any concern for the well being of Israel. In all likelihood Israel's destruction by her enemies G-d forbid would leave Obama breathing a sigh of relief. Of course, once he realized that Iran is bent on destroying or at least subverting "The Great Satan" as well as any other countries that won't bend to her will it may be too late to retaliate. Israel, as in the past, but even more so today stands alone. Our ray of hope is our unwavering trust and faith in HaShem and courage and audacity in the face of evil.
I agree with most of your comments here. With very much respect, I disagree with your statement that "as a lame duck, second term president, [Obama] will have less power to harm Israel than he will as a first term president poised for reelection."
I would submit that the only thing that keeps President Obama's "coolness" toward Israel from being unmasked (as the venomous hatred that it truly is) is the political consequences to his re-election of being perceived as anti-Israel. Notice how he visibly softened his tone after his treatment of Netanyahu hurt him in the polling among wealthy Jewish donors.
Of course, his softer talk is all smoke and mirrors. Any fool with half a brain can watch his actions and know exactly how President Obama views Israel. If President Obama is elected to a second term (God forbid!), watch the thin veneer (and the gloves) come off on November 7.
Fortunately, Obama is not a good manager, and does not fully control the US government. However, as commander in chief, he alone has the power to launch a military attack. He will not do so, because his sympathies do not lie with Israel, they lie with the Muslim world.
So long as Iran is able to export nationalized oil, it will have the capacity to restore any nuclear facilities that are destroyed. If Iran's oil export facilities were destroyed,
a partial destruction of Iran's nuclear facilities would be sufficient to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Because without oil export, Iran goes broke and the current regime will be overthrown by revolution.
So the basic choice is not as you posit, between a partial temporary destruction by Israel over a complete permanent destruction by the US. A complete permanent destruction of Iran's nuke program is impossible.
Rather, the choice is between disabling the Iran regime's oil export facilities, or not doing so. So long as Iran has oil money, it will be able to unleash terrorist forces and build/rebuild a nuke program.
Israel could kick the can down the road by crippling Iran's nuke program. Doing so would not prevent a future US president from finishing the job.
Before Israel attacks Iran, it needs to deal with the threat from Syria and southern Lebanon. As I have previously pointed out, that would be an easy matter to destroy but not occupy. Invade Syria from Golan Heights, overthrowing the regime in the capital city, pivoting through the Bekka valley into Beirut, then pivoting again to attack Hezb (in southern Lebanon) from the north. Hezb likely has defenses against Israeli attack from it's south, but not from it's north.
If Egypt interferes, simply take out the high Aswan Dam. That will keep the Egyptian government busy. Then re-take Sinai after dealing with Syria/Hezb. Then attack Iran.
It's too late to change anything. God has set events in motion that cannot be stopped.
The Road Map Israel chose to follow instead of listening to God has always led to Sheol for those who put their trust in the wrong place.
God will use Iran,Russia,China,N.Korea etc. to remove the stumbling block,America from the midst of Israel and finally get Israel's undivided attention.
"For I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you shall drive them out before you. 32 You shall make no covenant with them, nor with their gods. 33 They shall not dwell in your land, lest they make you sin against Me. For if you serve their gods, it will surely be a snare to you."
Exodus 23
July 5, 2005
Jeff
It was a dream or vision what ever you want to call it. It did not feel that far away the timeline of events. I was driving in my car early in the morning around maybe 5 am felt like I was comeing home from a job at a radio or maybe tv station. I was listening to the radio and they said that Iranain oil tankers being escorted by russian warships have attemed to cross the US naval blockaid of the Gulf of Oman and that an exchange between US Naval Forces and Russian Warships has accoured and that a US navy carrier has been sunk by a low yed nuclear blast and that we responed with same.Then shortly after I started to hear the weather sirens and then the Emergency Alert System over the radio. Then shortly after that The radio annoucer have stated that nuclear weapon explosions have taken out nato miltary headquaters and norad in Colorado then I saw mutable detentions of nuclear weapons not far from where I was at. Then one more flash of light then I was up.I don't know if this was just a dream or events to come. I only know one thing it felt to real and it felt close.
Wonderfully reported and stated! And your Fox News Video interview is, by far, the clearest assessment I've ever seen in the US media.
Now if only The State of Israel were able to communicate its position so clearly...it's a shame :(
Chazak U'baruch.
My representative in the Dutch Parliament Wim Kortenhoeven of the Freedom Party wants a strangle sanction policy.
I support mr. Kortenhoeven in that.
I said many times like today
http://www.facebook.com/groups/2372533283/10150353264013284/
that the islamic Iranian Revolutionary Guards atom bomb facility must be destroyed with all means available.
If shiite Iran were to acces atom bomb capability than it is not nescessary to have missiles aswell to launch them ...
One testing of a nuclear explosion would sustain to trigger a nuclear arms race in the Arab world .... Which is what I believe is the "niche" of the shiite muslims of Iran.
If they were to succeed in triggering a regional nuclear arms race than this would give Iran
A. for decades a leading role
B. intensifies tensions with the west as well as the shunni Arab states in that region
C. most of all operates as a politically cloaked driving power behind the newly created theater of Washigton based Anglo-American socialist backed Saudi shunni heinous islamic war from the North of Africa spreading fascist murderous sharia islam over the whole of the Christian African continent all the way to Westcape http://www.facebook.com/groups/2372533283/10150353264013284/
just when secular Arab population needs the support of a Michele Bachmann as President of the US and save the Free World from darkness ...
"...after Iran's plan to penetrate terror operatives into the US through the Mexican border was revealed."
What a laugh, considering that they are already here in the US!
Isn't it interesting that Mr. Obama invariably does whatever will harm the US the most and any of it's allies but especially Israel?
It's almost like he is working for someone else...
I don't understand your point that Obama will be a "lame duck" if he gets a second term. I think Obama will do far more damage in a second term since he will not be pre-occupied with getting re-elected.
Excellent article!
The last line seems to be a mistake however. As a second term president, Obama will have even MORE power and incentive to harm Israel.
Ditto to what Joe and Annonymous said (@ 10;46 and 10:47 respectively). The prospect of a second term/lame duck term is far more dangerous than a first term. He will have no reason to reign in any of his Jew hatred at all and will be free to unleash the worst of his worst self. It it a prospect I shudder to even consider.
nuke iran's reactors;this sends message to iran's proxies. no american president will attack iran-even mccain was all bluster and later ruled out attack. israel's losses will be dramatically greater the longer you wait.
Caroline, in keeping with your article, here is one by Barry Rubin.
http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin/2011/11/09/how-the-obama-administration-helps-kill-the-chances-for-arab-turkish-and-iranian-democracy/
Reading your last paragraph brings me to being deeply puzzled : How can the american people reelect such a phony , impotent , ridiculous character ? He is almost zero on economy, totally zero in the mideast, under zero about the ecology ( see the failure of his favourite solar energy firm ).
Second amazement : Why the republicans are unable to have a strong , articulate, decent candidate , not a Mr nice hair like Rick Perry, a pizza king like Herman Cain.
Third and last amazement: Why do jews are still so aloof, so gullible about this " I hate Israel-Netanyahu is a liar " snobish leftist ?