'Don't even think of bombing Iran'?
Writing in the Financial Times of London (link available only with paid subscription), former NSC and CIA official Bruce Riedel and colleague Michael O'Hanlon, both of the Brookings Institution, argue against military strikes on Iran (I do not have a paid subscription, and therefore I am only citing and commenting on the portions quoted by Laura Rozen at Politico, which I will get to in a minute). ... The strike option, however, lacks credibility. America is engaged in two massive and unpopular military campaigns in the region. Given Iran’s ability to retaliate against the US in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is simply not credible that we would use force in the foreseeable future. Tehran, Moscow and Beijing know this.The strike option is as credible as the United States chooses to make it. Polls indicate far more support in the US for a strike against Iran than there is for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And an American declaration that it will not strike Iran, which is essentially what Riedel and O'Hanlon are advocating, would make an Israeli strike more likely. Make no mistake about it: If Israel strikes Iran, Iran will retaliate against US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Laura Rozen's comments on a potential Israeli strike against Iran are worth reading in full. But this comment was especially intriguing:
"Israel has been interested for some time in items that could hit varied targets," the Washington Institute's Patrick Clawson told POLITICO. "Hezbollah is burying a lot of stocks, and digging more tunnels. Israel needs things that will hit varied targets that are [also] useful for Iran. Israel is also interested in [items that enable] long-distance strikes" such as those Israel reportedly used to strike Hamas weapons convoys in Sudan last year. "They can quite credibly say the last time we used this was not against Iran" but for other operations, Clawson said. "It's not very surprising they would be continuing to press" for such items. Nor that the Pentagon might turn them down.Back to Reidel and O'Hanlon:
There is also a technical reality: even a massive strike would not slow Iran’s progress towards a bomb for long. We cannot be sure we know where all existing Iranian facilities to enrich uranium are located – as the revelation of yet another previously unknown site near Qom last year reminded us. Even if we did strike most or all existing facilities, Iran can rebuild fairly fast and would surely expel inspectors and burrow further underground when building its next facilities. It would be even harder to find, and strike, those assets. ...Maybe. Or maybe they'd be delayed two years during which Ahmadinejad and Khameni would fall and a democratic regime would accede to power that would not be interested in nuclear weapons and would not prosecute a religious war against Israel. Those who argued against striking Saddam Hussein's Osirak reactor in 1981 also claimed that he would rebuild anyway. They were wrong.
Generally, those who argue against a military strike stop 10 yards short of the finish line. After concluding that a strike would not make sense, they still tend to tolerate leaving it as a last resort. There are dangers to such an approach. Mr Obama may some day come under pressure to employ it when all else has failed – and we think this would be a mistake ...If all else has failed, you can bet that the Israelis will strike Iran regardless of what Obama does. If anything, not leaving the military option out there will make an Israeli strike more likely and will make it much less likely that any sanctions regime (do they oppose that too?) will be effective.
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 7:16 PM
6 Comments:
As I have said before, if you are going to strike iran the first several sorties should be focused on iran's military and government.
What it all means is even many of our conservative friends are against saving Israel.
The fact remains however that a drone is easily shot down and the IAF does not have enough manpower or planes to make a prolonged strike.
For as negative as I am I do believe somewhere there is a secret place or plan for landings and take-offs somewhere no one will know about perhaps until it is over.
One thing I do know for sure is that the world learned nothing from the Shoah! The blood of Jews obviously for all the 'talk' to the contrary, means nothing.
The world watched as Jews were exterminated. They did nothing even when the air smelled of burning flesh. So they marched in at the end to liberate the camps to satiate the guilt of doing nothing before. Yes, Jews were saved because of it. I say, I owe you nothing for doing it. Even an animal, the lowest on the food chain has been known to give aid and rescue.
What does that say for a world who cared little then and cares even less now?
we have to destroy A´djad and Khamenei physically, much easier than attacking Iran, and much more effective
According to your other postees, no one else cares about Israel apart from a few Jews(of which I am one).
In that case we have nothing to lose.
Please dont talk about drones and such like!
Ahmadi is building nukes and desperately wants to be the one to bring forth the "Mahdi", the islamic messiah.
Why does Israel possibly have nukes? if these possibilities have not deterred Iran, they must be put into probability and used.
What is the point of a load of dead Jews and their missiles all cosy in their silos?
BTW, Brookings institution seems to me to be a hotbed of lefty do-nothing dhimmis!
Every day them uranium centrifuges keep whirling, Iran is daring the world - Iran, of all countries, the one whose people march carrying signs saying "Death to Israel" and "Death to America". Why? Islam, which teaches true believers to wage ceaseless war against infidels, and promises paradise for killing and being killed to advance Islam, and which commands them to equip themselves with the maximum force. Study Islam's hairy history free online with the Historyscoper and master all the key facts and see how deep the rabbit hole goes at http://go.to/islamhistory
Post a Comment
<< Home