Iran: Is Israel preparing to attack?
Someone, somewhere, wants you to believe that Israel is actively preparing plans to attack Iran's nuclear research plants.
So should you believe it? More importantly, should the Iranians believe it?
Israel, it's said, has just carried out a major military exercise which could easily have been a rehearsal for such an attack.
The Economist quotes the former US ambassador at the UN, John Bolton, as suggesting that Israel may be planning an attack for after the US presidential election in November but before the inauguration of the next president in January - "too late to be accused of influencing the election and before needing a new president's green light."
But I think I would still advise caution. Take a look at a map: to get to Iran from Israel you have to fly through the airspace of one or more of these countries: Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Iraq. The quickest way is to head due east, across Jordan and Iraq.
True, Jordan is probably in no position to object if the Israelis decide to do it that way. But who controls Iraqi air space? The US. So would Washington give Israel the green light?
Consider this scenario: Israel bombs Iran. Iran retaliates. Its proxies in Lebanon and Gaza (Hizbollah and Hamas respectively) launch multiple rocket attacks into Israel.
But they do more. They order their allies in Iraq into action against US forces there. As a well-informed American friend said the other day: "Israel attacks Iran with US approval and Americans die? I don't think so."
And there's one more thing you need to bear in mind as well. Israel is in the throes of yet another political crisis: the Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, is beset by corruption allegations and may well be gone by the end of the year. His challengers for the party leadership are already jockeying for position, some hoping to win support by making blood-curdling threats against Iran.
None of this means there won't be an attack. It just means that, as always in the Middle East, you shouldn't necessarily believe everything you hear.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~46~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
As usual, Israel is doing everything possible to have others do the risky and expensive work.
Our pundits need to emphasize that
(1) Iran has every legal right to nuclear weapons.
(2) Given the threats from Israel, its leaders have a duty to develop them.
(3) As the range of rockets increases, Israel will see threats from Pakistan, etc., and claim more aggressions as "self-defense".
(4) Reports from honest sources, such as the Christian Science Monitor, show much pro-US and anti-mullah sentiment within Iran.
(5) Threats and boycotts serve to support the mullahs against the opposition.
(6) It is time to look at the map and at history and recognize that Iran makes a far more valuable strategic ally for the West than does Israel.
Complain about this comment
Xie-Ming -
Iran does not have a legal right to nuclear weapons. There were three basic categories of country as regards nuclear weapons as of 1990 - The US, the Soviet Union, the UK, France and China are the five 'legitimate' ones, hence their permanent seats at the UN Security Council. The subsequent collapse of the USSR and the fact that many weapons were deployed outside of the Russian Federation somewhat muddied the waters but Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan have since signed the NPT.
There are the three further nuclear powers - India, Pakistan and Israel - all of which declined to participate in the NPT process and presumably entitled under international law to have them.
The third group are those which are party to the NPT and which may not, under its provisions, deploy, develop or aquire nuclear weaponry. Iran is a signitory to the treaty and her legal status in this respect is quite clear.
Complain about this comment
Any sovereign nation, may, at any time, withdraw from any treaty (as the USA has). That is international law.
Thus, Iran has every legal right to develop nuclear weapons if it wishes to do so.
Talk about "treaties" that let the USA and Israel have weapons but would deny them to others is simply a way to deceive the public.
Complain about this comment
Concerning the larger issue and Article 10 of the NPT:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0702/p09s01-coop.html
Complain about this comment
The willingness of the US and Israel to employ pre-emptive strikes as and when they think they can ignore world opinion shows how close their basic policies are to one another . To the rest of the world they seem inseparable - is Israel the 51 st. state of the US or is the US a suburb of Haifa ? Whatever - they both back each other to the hilt so if Israeli planes cross Iraq it will be when the Americans weren't looking !
Complain about this comment
Reading your blog entry Mr. Lustig, it seems to me you have done everything possible to convince yourself that this is not going to happen. But how can it not happen. Whether a bluff or a real threat, Israel and much of the world believes that Iran is working as hard and quickly as it can to build nuclear weapons. For what purpose? It's leaders have said they want a world without the great Satan America and that the little Satan Israel should be wiped off the map. Such threats when backed up by what appears to be a serious program to develop nuclear weapons cannot go ignored or unresponded to. There is the usual worthless talk out of Europe. Sarkozy for one said France would not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons and Russia seemed to agree. But what will they really do to prevent it? Nothing seems to deter the Iranian regime.
Nuclear weapons have their own peculiar logic which obsoletes all notions of international law. You can't wait to be attacked first before responding if you want to survive. That goes not only for Israel but for most nations. The US would survive a nuclear first strike by a relatively primitive nuclear power like Iran but it would not be the same country ever again. The only rational response to the growing theat of a nuclear first strike by an implacable enemy is a pre-emptive strike. In the case of the US it has a non nuclear option which would involve massive use of conventional weapons. But in the case of Isreal, it has only one possible response and that is a nuclear first strike of its own. Not only that, but it cannot risk the possibility that material for making a bomb has been already dispersed throughout Iran so that a strike on only the known weapons research and development infrastructure would be certain to be adequate, Israel would probably have to destroy the entire country to be secure from the threat. In the realm of nuclear weapons, Israel's capabilities are not to be taken lightly. While it is a small country, it surely has a remarkable cadre of top nuclear scientists which put its nuclear weapons in a different category from those of say Pakistan. What I'm saying is not only does Israel likely have several hundred nuclear weapons, many or even most may be thermonuclear weapons, many times more powerful than the bombs which destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This would give Israel the capability to literally make Iran disappear. It also poses the very real risk of setting one of the largest oil deposits in the world ablaze in a fire that will never be put out. This would be an ecological catastrophe for the entire world. But there doesn't seem to be much happening to prevent it.
Complain about this comment
Iran has every right to nuclear weapons.
Given the statements of Israel's fundamentalist fanatics (which include a large part of Iran in "Greater Israel),
and the expansionist plans of Israel's military leaders (as researched by Tel Aviv Prof. Tanya Reinhardt),
Iran's leaders have a duty to develop nuclear weapons.
Why not look at what Israel's former Foreign Minister has to say about it?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0702/p09s01-coop.html
Complain about this comment
Post 6 - Marcus your logic is correct in that the only to be completley 100% sure that Iran can never at any time now or in the future develop a nuclear weapon is to completely 100% destroy Iran.
However it would be a difficult course to follow. Nuclear weapons have their own peculiar logic which obsoletes all notions of normal warfare. Whilst Israel may be technically capable of carrying out such destruction as you describe, the consequences would be catastrophic. I don’t mean politically (would US troops be withdrawn from next door Iraq and Afghanistan beforehand to avoid them being hit by any fall out or would they be acceptable colateral damage?) or economically (just think of the oil price?) but environmentally. I believe the prevailing winds are easterly so most fall out would be carried toards Pakistan, Afghanistan and India but it would not take much contamination to poison a small country like Israel. The scarce water supply could be contaminated making the land uninhabitable.
Even without such “blowback” the impact of such a nuclear strike on the globe would be disastrous. You mention the posible oil fires but consider the thoughts of Carl Sagan (American (born in New York) and as a disticnguished scientist was awarded the NASA medal for exceptional scientific achievement in 1972)
“Except for fools and madmen, everyone knows that nuclear war would he an unprecedented human catastrophe….. In technical studies of the consequences of nuclear weapons explosions, there has been a dangerous tendency to underestimate the results. This is partly due to a tradition of conservatism which generally works well in science but which is of more dubious applicability when the lives of billions of people are at stake…… Nuclear war is a problem that can be treated only theoretically. It is not amenable to experimentation. Conceivably, we have left something important out of our analysis, and the effects are more modest than we calculate. On the other hand, it is also possible-and, from previous experience, even likely-that there are further adverse effects that no one has yet been wise enough to recognize…….” or see this article new scientist.
The people of Israel are entitled to live without the threat of destruction and if presented with the threat of enihilation are entitled to defend themselves.
It may very well be that the leaders of Iran are “fools and madmen”, alas such people do come to power all too often, however I don’t know if the leaders of Israel or foolish or mad. I’m sure that they would not consider the complete devastation of Iran as a viable option although they may consider limited strikes to set-back any Iranian nuclear weapons program.
You're all doing very well !!
Complain about this comment
Israel pretty much has to the intention to attack Iran, for its involvement in Lebanon and other Middle East Countries.
Complain about this comment
The role of Bush/Cheney is to be considered also.
The NYRB has a detailed examination of the threat to Iran, which included:
"This is not the first time such arguments have been made. Some Americans, including Air Force generals, believed in the late 1940s that a preemptive war against the Soviet Union was justified by the peril of Moscow with a bomb.
Twenty years later the Russians, in their turn, were so alarmed by the prospect of Beijing with a bomb that they quietly proposed to the Americans a joint effort to destroy the Chinese nuclear development effort with a preemptive attack.."
Presumably, some BBC employees can read the New York Review of Books. Do you suppose the British public will ever be informed?
Complain about this comment
There is no such thng as a right to have or not have nuclear weapons just as there is actually no such thing as international law. The real question is, does having or trying to obtain nuclear weapons make Iran safer or less safe? The answer depends entirely on how its enemies view it and what political will and determination they have to prevent it from acquiring them. In the case of Israel, when it is convinced that Iran's possession of them is imminent, it will likely act pre-emptively as a matter of self preservation. This can mean only one thing in Israel's case, a pre-emptive nuclear first strike. If it has the capability it is believed to have, although it never admitted to it, the question is then to what lengths it will use that capabiltiy to eliminate all possible avenues for Iran to retalliate against it. It can if it chooses eliminate any and all potential adversaries if the experts are right. That would include at the very least an end of Iran as a viable society forever. But it could include a lot more. There is every reason to be frightened of what is possible and dismayed that the world has not taken far more forceful steps to avoid it. Time seems to be running out as Iran proceeds almost blind to the possible eventualities.
Complain about this comment
Young-Mr-Grace
We are talking about a doomsday scenario. Sadly for many, it may not be in the far off future. We are talking about a nation faced with the grim alternative of nearly certain annihilation if it does nothing or possible, even probable annihilation if it acts. Under those circumstances, it will have little choice or little to lose. Yes it has the power to eliminate Iran forever. The hard part is not the execution of the military strike, it's the irrevocable and irreversible decision to act. In a sense every major nuclear power holds the entire future of humanity in its hands. Israel is clearly among them. Given the history of what has happened to those people consistently in the distant past, the not so distant past, the recent past and the present, I could not criticize them whatever they decide to do. From what I read on these BBC blogs and see and here elsewhere, there is little reason to hope that many other people see or care right now what will likely happen, they are so caught up in their own prejudices. And if you think the situation isn't crazy enough already, there are many in the US who pray for nuclear war in the middle east as a prerequisite for the second coming of Christ. They actually look forward to it. I don't expect the world to be aound much longer. There are too many threats to its fragile existance that one of them won't soon do the whole thing in. I've never felt this way before in my nearly 60 years living on this planet.
Complain about this comment
Re #12
It would be well to remember the extent of fanaticism in Israel.
Recall the "Sampson Option", whose proponents argue that Israel should use nuclear arms to bring on World conflagration should Israel be endangered.
[Sampson was supposed to have brought the Temple down upon both himself and his enemies]
Complain about this comment
What about all the 'none nuclear' nations who are surrogate to the bombs of permanent security council members?
Are they considered 'none nuclear'?
Complain about this comment
I believe that the US is bluffing in order to try to intimidate Iran.
I also believe that Bush is a nut and Cheney is a sociopath, so the risk is high.
Intimidation is a totally contra-productive policy.
Those who govern Israel are sociopathic and will do whatever they think that they can get away with.
We have heard US officials say "we must support Israel".
Thus, the risk is great.
Americans should contact their Congressmen!
Complain about this comment
Xie_Ming, I agree the US is bluffing. That is why I have written to my President twice asking him to launch a nuclear first strike against Iran. I'm sorry to say this will probably not happen. I don't think the US will strike Iran until it is struck first. Very foolish.
Complain about this comment
Marcus Aurelius II
I find myself confused (not perhaps for the first time or the last...)
In previous post on this thread you stated of a nuclear attack on Iran
"....It also poses the very real risk of setting one of the largest oil deposits in the world ablaze in a fire that will never be put out. This would be an ecological catastrophe for the entire world. But there doesn't seem to be much happening to prevent it. .." yet in post 16 you claim to have writtem to GWB asking for that very thing and you call him a fool for failing to do so.
Is this because you consider it possible for the US to completely eliminate all possible Iranian facilities in a way that Israel cannot and without environmental disaster? Given the scale of the stike that you suggest would be necessary to completely ensure the destruction of any Iranian scheme then I would doubt that US bombs would cause any less global catastrophe than Irsaeli ones. The whole of humanity, including Israel, would be affected. it will not serve to protect Israel if such destruction is caused that Israel becomes uninhabitable due to fall-out (diectly and indirectly eg poisioning of water supply from rivers that rise outside Israel) and climatic change.
For once I agree with Mr Bush.
You're all doing very well !!
Complain about this comment
So, (Xie_Ming #7) 'Iran's leaders have a duty to develop nuclear weapons.', notwithstanding that (Xie_Ming #15) 'Intimidation is a totally contra-productive policy.'So what do they want them for?
There are 3 possible reasons why a country might want to develop a nuclear capability.
1. Blackmail - Klauswitz's dictum that 'war is the continuation of diplomacy by other means' has a certain added piquancy when nuclear oblivion is a possible outcome:
2. Accute Paranoia - Everyone is out to get us and they will if we don't get them first.
3. Jonesmanship - They've got one so I have to have one.
There are 3 scenarios in which the capability might be useful:
1. Overwhelming superiority - You will do as we say because you have absolutely no choice.
2. Approximate Equivalence - We both have the ability but neither one of us has anything to gain and everything to lose (India and Pakistan for instance).
3. Overkill - Once the ball is rolling, it's curtains for the entire planet (Cold War, Mutually Assured Destruction, deterence).
And there are 3 situations in which their use is unthinkable (unless you are completely mad):
1. Unacceptable Collateral Damage - you cannot attack your enemy without causing grave damage to countries which are not your enemy.
2. Unacceptable Response Consequences - the price of launching an attack, even if successful, would be desvastating defeat.
3. Technical Problems - the risk is unimaginable unless 100% certain of technical capability.
Iran could not hit Israel without very considerable risk of collateral damage in surrounding countries, the only Europen countries which might just be in range are either in NATO (Turkey, Bulgaria) or CIS so the concequences would be certain destruction , either from NATO or Russia and the system they would use would be rocketry which has never carried and nuclear payload, a guidance system which has had minimal testing and a warhead which has never been tested.
So I repeat, what for?
Complain about this comment
#18
Defense against Israeli aggression, Iraeli threats and Israeli "Greater Israel" ideology.
Israeli believes that it must defend against a hostile gentile World. Its concept of "self-defense" will include destroying all potential attackers within rocket range- that will eventually include Pakistan and beyond.
Israel's ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians is based on a similar "doctrine of survival necessity".
Israel has three submarines equipped with nuclear missiles. Why are these needed?
As the Measheimer and Walt report demonstrates, the US Congress is under Israeli influence. The USA has land troops on three sides of Iran, has a fleet off the coast of Iran and has ground troops operating on a war footing INSIDE Iran.
In addition, the US President makes continual warlike threats against Iran, as does Israel.
For these reasons, the leadership of Iran has a DUTY to move as rapidly as possible to be able to defend itself against such obvious, nuclear-armed aggressors.
____________________________
The mental condition of Bush and the sociopathy of Cheney would suggest that only the capability to destroy the aggressors would deter them.
One third of the Israeli population are extremist fundamentalists who believe in End Times, etc. Others speak of the "Sampson Option" of World destruction.
With such mentalities among the aggressors, only the potential of mutually assured destruction could restrain them.
Complain about this comment
The only resolution to this conflict is for America to step in and bomb Israel. If they hit Jerusalem then all the conflict goes away as the sacred area will nolonger be available to fight over.
Of course this will never happen because the most selfish 'cult' ever created; the Zionists, are the tail that wags the dog, America.
The problem is that Yanks don't even realise that they are being used. The Zionists mistrust and use everyone. For example why would they spy on Canada or even Austrailia? They thrive on leeching from others; remember the slave labour of the Kibbutz? Now they are the bringers of the plague via their puppet Monsanto that wishes to enslave the Africans with sterile seed. Our supermarkets are full of Israeli foods grown in the fields stolen from the Nomadic tribes of Palestine. I will not knowingly eat of their poison. If they wish to be at peace with thieir neighbours then they should respect them and use their superior scientific knowledge to help their poor neighbours, rather than bulldozing and bombing them
Complain about this comment
Young-Mr-Grace #17
Yes, the US has a far greater ability to execute an attack which may include tactical nuclear weapons in what could loosely be called a sort of surgical strike in a way Israel can't. This is because the US has a vast array of different types of nuclear weapons at its disposal for different missions, effective conventional weapons Israel doesn't have, and the delivery systems to use them effectively. It may seem crazy to talk about the death of possibly millions of people as a surgical strike but compared to the alternatives, this would be a minimal attack.
Israel on the other hand will not have the luxury of what is a comparatively measured pre-emptive response to Iran's threat. That would be certain suicide. Whatever weapons Iran possesses that survive such a first strike, it will launch at Israel virtually immediately and I would expect their long range missiles to carry chemical and possibly biological weapons. Israel's only way to prevent this is through a coordinated attack which would destroy all of the territory of Iran in one single sudden blow, a bolt from the blue. In the strange and largely unknown calculus of nuclear war, we don't know what Israel would do if faced with a retalitory strike which would likely end its existance. Would it use its entire arsenal to avenge itself on all its neighbors? It seems rather a grim prospect to me. Anyone who thinks that because they live far off such as we here in North America will escape the consequences of what will happen half a world away is only kidding themselves. But the world seems unwilling to defuse this calamity headed for us by forcibly stopping Iran while there is still time. Even the French govenment knows it.
Complain about this comment
Marcus
While I accept that the US has miltiary options that Israel does not the real Q is not does the US have the missiles but does it know where to aim them. On post No. 6 you said "but it (Israel) cannot risk the possibility that material for making a bomb has been already dispersed throughout Iran so that a strike on only the known weapons research and development infrastructure would be certain to be adequate". that logic would also hold for the US. If a US strike left just one Iranian missile standing then that could be a serious threat to a country the size of Israel (total land area just over 20,000 sq km - smaller (i think) than the state of new Hampshire)
If the knowledge of Iranian sites is comparible to Donald Rumsfeld's knowledge of Iraq's - "They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat " then a limited strike would not suffice . The only options would be complete anihilation of Iran in which "collateral damage" would most likely include Israel and so defeat the purpose of the exercise or to find a non-military solution. This last option is the most difficult, and potentially could fail but it has to be fully attempted. Success would result in Iran folowing Libya in giving up any programs and failure in this case would most likely result in a nuclear stand-off in the ME similar to the situation in India/Pakistan and although not ideal is the least worst option compared to destruction of Israel and/or most of the rest of the planet.
It would be the greatest irony if Israel became the world's biggest suicide bomber.
You're all doing very well !!
Complain about this comment
#19 - Xie_Ming
We have already received your ideological and political message loud and clear.
My question is far more prosaic.
Why do the Iranians have a 'duty' to develop an aggressive capability which - barring a decent into total collective insanity - they are never going to use?
It1s a simple enough question.
Complain about this comment
By the way, Ahmadinejad has less than a year left in his present term and appears to be under some pressure domestically. Olmert also may be lucky to survive for much longer. There could be an entirely different situation in the near future.
Complain about this comment
#19, #23
Iran has a duty to develop nuclear capability for exactly the same reasons that the USSR and the USA did- the threat of mutually assured destruction guaranteed that there would be no use.
Interestingly, the Supreme Leader of Iran has, some time ago, issued a religious order (fatwah) forbidding the development or use of nuclear weapons and gave his reasons.
Why do you suppose that this has not been more widely reported by the BBC?
Do you suppose that it might be because it contradicts the propaganda of the NeoCons and the Israeli Foreign Office?
Complain about this comment
Young-Mr-Grace
There are many unknowns. It's hard to say if the US could prevent Iran from retaliating with a limted first strike whose main objective is to eliminate its military and industrial capability without killing most of its people. It is possible that the US could avoid setting the oil fields ablaze in such a strike. I don't think the Israelis could avoid it. Both the US and Israel have the capability of eliminating Iran as an organized society. What a way to subvert the English language when what is actually meant is genocide. That BTW has been the policy of the nuclear powers almost since the dawn of the nuclear age.
Yes it would be a great irony if Israel became the world's biggest suicide bomber. And a greater irony still if it became the greatest mass murderer in the world, taking actions that would ultimately end all human life on earth. And why would it be so ironic? Because it would have been given no other choice. And most ironic of all is that there would be no one left alive to appreciate the irony of it.
Complain about this comment
It appears that someone knows more about Israel/Iran/USA than all of us:
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1215904313/
Should the link not appear, it is Avnery's article 1215904313 on the zope.gush-shalom.org website.
There is also mention of Sharon's plans to occupy Iran, which he took to Washington
Complain about this comment
Faced with an implacable enemy who is determined to destroy it, is developing nuclear weapons to get the job done, and has just demonstrated the means of delivering those weapons when they are ready, what alternative does Israel have, what has it got to lose by a pre-emptive attack. The only question in my mind is when will it occur and how far will it go. A lot of people I know are guessing it will happen sometime after the US Presidential election but before the innauguration. But will the attack be limited to Iran's nuclear weapons facilities or even to Iran for that matter? Very scary. When it becomes a matter of survival, I don't think Iraelis will care what the price of oil on the world market will become and I don't think anything that an America government could say would stop it. I don't think the US has any veto power over this even if it chose to try to exercise it. Given the current administration, I'm not particularly confident they'd even try. Some like Cheney and Richard Pearl might even welcome it.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS