Submit your comments on this article | |||||
Syria-Lebanon-Iran | |||||
Israeli threats to Iran seen as bluff -- for now | |||||
2008-07-02 | |||||
Israel seems content to keep Iran and the rest of the world guessing uneasily about whether and when it might attack the Islamic Republic's nuclear facilities. It has done little to douse speculation stoked by a big Israeli air force exercise last month, an Israeli cabinet minister's remark that military action was "inevitable" and a prediction by former U.S. official John Bolton that this might occur in the final weeks of President George W. Bush's term. Iran derides the chatter as "psychological warfare" and threatens dire retaliation if any assault materialised. Gulf Arab states whose oil exports could be among Iranian reprisal targets shuffle nervously, as crude prices push higher. "Should Israel be stupid enough to attempt an attack on Iran, as has been repeatedly threatened, then of course Tehran has the perfect right to retaliate in kind," wrote the Dubai-based Gulf News daily in its editorial on Monday. "But it does not quell the existing nervousness of people in the region by Iran stating that as part of its retaliation it would block ... Gulf oil routes," the newspaper added. The Israelis may believe that mere talk of military action can spur Iran to alter its behavior, or at least prompt tougher international action to induce Tehran to curb its nuclear quest -- which the Iranians say is only to produce energy, not bombs. Ephraim Kam, deputy director of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University, said Israel preferred for now to let diplomatic pressure run its course. "The talk (of military options) is designed to project deterrence, pressuring the Europeans to increase their pressure in hope this will curb Iran," he told Reuters in Jerusalem. Yet the Israeli military is presumably honing contingency plans, given Israel's deeply rooted fears that a nuclear-armed Iran would threaten its existence -- even though the Jewish state has its own powerful, if undeclared, nuclear deterrent.
He described Bolton's idea that an Israeli attack could take place between the U.S. election in November and the presidential inauguration in January as "very interesting speculation." Leaked reports of a major Israeli military exercise over the Mediterranean on June 2 amplified debate over Israel's posture. U.S. officials, who asked not to be named, said the drill involved 100 aircraft, but would not confirm or deny a New York Times report that it was a dry run for bombing Iran. Some defence analysts argue that even a full-scale U.S. air campaign would only delay Iran's nuclear plans by a few years -- Israeli forces operating far from home could not hope to destroy all of its many dispersed and fortified atomic installations.
That moment has not yet come. When Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz said last month that strikes on Iran looked unavoidable in view of that country's nuclear progress, critics at home accused him of exploiting strategic security issues for political gain. The Jaffee Centre's Kam said Israel could expect criticism for any assault on Iran, even from its allies in the West. "But I think in the end there would be understanding abroad, perhaps even a sense in the West that the Israelis did its dirty work. Iran doesn't have that many friends out there," he added.
Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer now at the Brookings Institution, said senior Israeli military planners believed a mission to dent Iran's nuclear program was feasible. "History shows Israel will use force to maintain its monopoly of nuclear weapons in the Middle East," he told Reuters by email, citing past Israeli attacks on Iraq and Syria. "Israeli political leaders may see the last months of a friendly Bush administration as a window of opportunity." Noting that U.S. forces in the Gulf and Iraq were likely targets for Iranian retaliation, which could also spark another war in Lebanon and send oil prices soaring, Riedel said: "Washington has vital strategic interests at stake here and needs to enunciate clearly its view on the wisdom or dangers of an Israeli operation."
| |||||
Posted by:Steve White |
#1 The problem is that just a couple of nuclear explosions would all but wreck Israel, whereas Short Round may figure he could lose Teheran and Qom and still survive. But could HE survive if he lost Qom, Tehran, Abadan, Bandar Abbas, Bushehr, Persepolis, Isfahan, Natanz, and twenty other cities? The Israelis are rumored to have 200+ nukes. Using half of them on Iran would leave plenty to keep Egypt, Syria, and any other arab nation from attacking. |
Posted by: Old Patriot 2008-07-02 19:05 |