Prepare For War With Iran -- In Case Israel Strikes

[Purveyor]

By Anne Applebaum
Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Let's be serious for a moment: Barack Obama will not bomb Iran. This is not because he is a liberal, or because he is a peacenik, or because he doesn't have the guts to try and "save his presidency" in this time-honored manner, as Daniel Pipes has urged and Sarah Palin said she would like him to do.

The president will not bomb Iran's nuclear installations for precisely the same reasons that George W. Bush did not bomb Iran's nuclear installations: Because we don't know exactly where they all are, because we don't know whether such a raid could stop the Iranian nuclear program for more than a few months, and because Iran's threatened response -- against Israelis and U.S. troops, via Iranian allies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and Lebanon -- isn't one we want to cope with at this moment. Nor do we want the higher oil prices that would instantly follow. No American president doing a sober calculation would start a war of choice now, while U.S. troops are actively engaged on two other fronts, and no American president could expect public support for more than a nanosecond.

But even if Obama does not bomb Iran, that doesn't mean that no one else will. At the moment, when Washington is consumed by health care and the implications of Massachusetts, it may seem as if Obama's most important legacy, positive or negative, will be domestic. In the future, we might not consider any of this important at all. The defining moment of his presidency may well come at 2 a.m. some day when he picks up the phone and is told that the Israeli prime minister is on the line: Israel has just carried out a raid on Iranian nuclear sites. What then?

This is hardly an inevitable scenario: If the Israelis were as enthusiastic about bombing raids as some believe, they would have carried them out already. They had no qualms about sending eight jets to take out Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981, or about bombing a purported Syrian facility in 2007. Both are now considered model operations. They were brief and successful, they provoked no serious retaliation, and they even won de facto acceptance from the outside world as legitimate defensive measures.

The Iranian context is different, as Zeev Raz, the squadron leader of the 1981 raid, readily concedes. "There is no single target that you could bomb with eight aircraft," he told the Economist (in a strangely tragic article that says Raz "exudes gloom" while his children apply for foreign passports). The Israelis have the same doubts as everyone else about the efficacy of raids, which is why they have focused on covert sabotage and even off-the-record diplomacy, despite having no diplomatic relations with Iran, in the hopes of slowing down the nuclear development process. They have also quietly studied the ways in which Iran could be deterred, knowing that they will have the advantage in nuclear technology for the next couple of decades. Although they keep all options on the table, they have so far concluded that bombing raids aren't worth the consequences.

MORE...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/22/AR2010022203528.html

[Ozymanithrax]

1. When Bush was Saber rattling, Iran said they would consider an attack by Israel an attack..

by the U.S. It is their policy. Certainly, Israel would find getting to Iran very difficult without flying over U.S. Controlled airspace (or Turkish controlled airspace) where we could logically stop them if we chose. They would also use U.S. made aircraft in an attack.

The more paranoid Israel gets, the more likely this is to happen. And there is not a damn thing we can do about it.

[USA_1]

2. "there is not a damn thing we can do about it"

There is plenty we can do: first of all, tell Israel to stop making threats, impose UN sanctions for violating international law and UN Security Council Resolutions, and to withdraw all financial aid if Israel makes any overt move towards Iran. The world cannot afford another war. It's time to stop this nonsense once and for all.

[Ozymanithrax]

3. Let me see here...

We should also sanction Iran for making threats.

Such things do not happen in a vacuum.

Should Israel decide to attack Iran, they can do it. The military problem they face is that Iran has, at minimum, eight hardened nuclear sites spead across the country and protected by heavy civilian populations (human shields). The article points this out.

The way to address this problem is find a way to stop Iran's assumed development of nuclear weapons. Obama has been working hard to do that, and has even enlisted the Chinese and Russians in that attempt. Time will tell.

[johnroshan]

4. Be responsible.

Please stop supporting a state just because it provides strategic importance. I hope this is not a repeat of the South Asian Crisis of 1971. It did not go well for the World nor to the US. The US embassy in Dhaka even called the actions of the US administration "Morally Bankrupt". Soviet support for India was the only thing that probably saved India's ass and provided a deterrent to USA's direct involvement during the crisis. For those who want more history on "The Tilt", link follows the excerpt. This is from the National Security Archives, US.

U.S. did nothing to help curtail the genocide and never made any public statements in opposition to the West Pakistani repression.Instead, by using what Nixon and Kissinger called quiet diplomacy, the Administration gave a green light of sorts to the Pakistanis. In one instance, Nixon declared to a Pakistani delegation that, "Yahya is a good friend." Rather than express concern over the ongoing brutal military repression, Nixon explained that he "understands the anguish of the decisions which had to make." As a result of Yahya's importance to the China initiative and his friendship with Nixon and Kissinger, Nixon declares that the U.S. "would not do anything to complicate the situation for President Yahya or to embarrass him. (Document 9)." Much like the present situation post 9/11, Washington was hesitant to criticize Pakistan publicly out of fear that such a tactic might weaken the dictator's support for American interests.

Not only did the United States publicly pronounce India as the aggressor in the war, but the U.S. sent the nuclear submarine, U.S.S. Enterprise, to the Bay of Bengal, and authorized the transfer of U.S. military supplies to Pakistan, despite the apparent illegality of doing so.(5) American Military assistance was formally cutoff to both India and Pakistan. A combination of Nixon's emotional attachment to General Yahya and his dislike for Indira Gandhi, West Pakistan's integral involvement with the China initiative and Kissinger's predilection for power politics greatly influenced American policy decision-making during this conflict.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB79/

[USA_1]

10. "making threats"

What threats?

It is Israel and the USA that have threatened Iran. In turn, the only "threat" Iran has made is to retaliate if these aggressors initiate violence. Every country has a right to defend itself against foreign invaders. There is nothing in international that voids Iran's right to do the same.

[troubledamerican]

13. you're arguing with John Bolton in actuality

Hi John. We know.

[cowman]

15. You kinda left

out the fact that the pres. of Iran has stated that Iran' goal is to wipe Israel off the map. Sounds like a threat to me

[classysassy]

17. " just the facts,leave out the fiction"

Where did you get your information that Iran made such a statement?.

[USA_1]

22. See Juan Cole's website

For a better translation of that mythical "threat". This is a matter that has been cleared a thousand times before all throughout the Internet.

[Daveparts still]

21. First

Iran isn't a threat to Israel, Iran is a threat to Saudi Arabia. Both countries are jockeying for position as leader of the region. Iraq used to be the leader of the region before something happened to them.

Iran is developing nuclear power under the terms of the International Atomic Energy commission. Something that neither Pakistan, India or Israel bothered to observe. The facilities have been inspected and it is only presumed that they have a weapons program. Presumed by the very countries that never followed the treaty in the first place. So the guy that is following the law is presumed guilty while the countries who never followed the law are presumed innocent.

This isn't about atomic weapons. The United States invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan because this is about global dominance of a vital region of the world. Every country that will not bow down and kiss our ring is named as an enemy and threatened. Israel is our proxy state, they are a far right wing warlike military state playing tit for tat with the US. They won't attack Iran until given permission.

This so called "news" article is just more Neo-con Propaganda.

[Happy Friend]

5. Iran

Why all this worry over Iran?

Is it Iran's authoritarianism?

But Russia, China, Pakistan, and North Korea acquired the bomb without being bombed for trying.

Is it human rights?

China's record is far worse. As is N. Korea's.

Is it ties to radical Islam/terrorism?

Pakistan has more ites. The Taliban was created by the ISI (Pakistan version of CIA) and the CIA and funded by the ISI/CIA. Furthermore, Iran is a sworn enemy of al qaeda.

We could stop an Israeli attack. We pay for all their weapons after all, or at least we give them enough aid to pay for it all.

The conversation in the US is so weird.

[bemildred]

6. The conversation is weird because it is never about what it is about.

Oil and obedience.

[Jefferson23]

7. Yep, that is exactly what it's about.

[Happy Friend]

8. Except when it's not...

At least I think it isn't. I think it is about preventing Iran from acquiring a deterrent capability vis-a-vis Israel.

Iran can and will just sell its oil to China. We are missing out and should make them Iran an ally imo.

Don't get me wrong, the regime is awful. But Ahmedinajhad is just a figurehead. Furthermore, they haven't threatened Israel. They have been mistranslated to that effect.

[USA_1]

11. "they haven't threatened Israel. They have been mistranslated to that effect. "

You are correct. This has been pointed by Professor Juan Cole many times. Anyone can readily look it up in his website.

[Dan]

9. So explain to me

why Americans should fight and die supporting or as result of Israel's military actions?

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[proteus_lives]

19. Stop being a coward and just say it.

You're not clever and your mask is slipping.

[troubledamerican]

14. Don't be anti-Semitic.

Not cool to be satirical with the way that phrase gets thrown around? I know. This isn't America or something.

[Dan]

16. Not anti-Semitic

I want to know why we should have Americans die in a conflict not of our making.

No, this is more of a Nation-State question.

[troubledamerican]

24. As I stated in my underlying text

I was being satirical with that phrase, like this was America or something.

In other words I agree

[Dan]

25. Smiling,

I'm just an old man and not as quick as I used to be... thanks for the clarification - and I will be more diligent in trying to understand what I am reading...smile.

[classysassy]

18. Bingo

we have a winner,an honest answer to a question that most people already know.

[Jester Messiah]

20. Yeah, what he said.

Israel has its own military, its own defense budget, and its own political leadership. Why is a threat against them any concern of ours? And it's not just Israel, the same holds true for any foreign country. We need to seriously review our treaty obligations and start opting out. It's just not our problem.

[JohnWxy]

23. I don't know about war with Iran (not likely) but be prepared for a significant drop in oil

supply. Micro Fueler Is First Ethanol Kit for Brewing Backyard Biofuels on the Cheap

[4lbs]

26. Wait. The article just contradicted itself.

First, it said that Obama's 'defining moment' could be that 2 A.M. phone call saying that Israeli has raided Iran with some fighters and bombers.

Then it says that Israel has concluded that bombing raids aren't worth the consequences because they'll have the nuclear advantage for the next few decades and Israel doubts the efficacy of such raids on Iran.

So, then, when is that particular 2 AM phone call regarding Israel and Iran ever going to happen during Obama's tenure?