Jul 1,2008
Unnamed senior Pentagon officials told ABC News there is an “increasing likelihood” Israel will attack Iran, and soon.
The official identified two “red lines” that could trigger an Israeli offensive. The first is tied to when Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility produces enough highly enriched uranium to make a nuclear weapon. According to the latest U.S. and Israeli intelligence assessments, that is likely to happen sometime in 2009, and could happen by the end of this year.
“The red line is not when they get to that point, but before they get to that point,” the official said. “We are in the window of vulnerability.”
The second red line is connected to when Iran acquires the SA-20 air defense system it is buying from Russia. The Israelis may want to strike before that system — which would make an attack much more difficult — is put in place.
Some Pentagon officials also worry that Israel may be determined to attack before a new U.S. president, who may be less supportive, is sworn in next January.
For more on that, read this piece by JTA’s Ron Kampeas.
Breaking News
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- "I seem to recall that it was the Jews in Gaza that were removed without being given the option of be" Paul Winter on Reflections of an American-Israeli-Palestinian Jew
- "The bulk of Americans believe the HASBARA in US media about Palestinians because there is NO balance" Miriam on Reflections of an American-Israeli-Palestinian Jew
- "Tell Halper that I have a friend in Santa Rosa, Ca., 70+ years of age. a Jew. born and raised in wha" Eugene M. Kravis, DVM, on Reflections of an American-Israeli-Palestinian Jew
6 Responses for "Pentagon warns about Israeli attack on Iran"
Bush wants to leave a kindred Republican administration in control. To help assure that, a hot Middle East, requiring US support of Israel, mlitary or otherwise with a person of strong military backround as President will be “desirable”. A “wink” from Bush to Israel and the attack on the Iranian nuclear facilities will occur - sometime between August 15 and September 15.
Signed,
The Oracle
And I say bring it on, baby, bring it on.
Good for Israel . . . and for a “wink” from Bush . . . that’s a bit much . . . the idea that Israel should wait to protect itself to avoid undue influence on the upcoming American Presidential election is mad . . . it’s not like Israel is attacking Sweden . . . Iran is a country which has sworn itself to the destruction of Israel . . .
Iran is also the only country (aside from Israel and maybe small urban parts of Turkey) that held mass demonstrations IN SOLIDARITY with the US after 9/11, offering any assistance it could. That gesture/offer was scorned by the Bush admin who immediately tried to tie Iran in with the Arabs of 9/11 and al-qaeda. up to (some say more than) 2-3 million people marched in sympathy and sorrow then. And Iran still has never stopped hating Arabs; they may be Muslims but they really HATE Arabs.
Iran is also the only country which has housed Afghan refugees steadily since 1980, without ANY international funding or much fuss. they did this while they were involved in a murderous war with Iraq (Iraq’s part of the war was funded by ‘unlimited’ US ‘agricultural credits” credits supposed to be used for food but in fact, were used for war materiel) and had their own internal refugee problems. before any or either bush had discovered Afghanistan and its woes, Iran was caring for afghan refugees (and still does), its own internal refugees and later, Iraqi refugees.
Israel knows that the nuclear program began under the Shah; it was Israeli engineers who were there who showed them how to build in the mountains. I know this because I was there in 1975-78 working at the uni and with the Imperial Navy; I lived across the street from the Israeli Embassy and when I got back to the US, knew and worked with many of the Israeli engineers and other agents who had been there.
Additionally, even though someone is always able to trot out some Iranians who scream anti-American/Semitic/Zionist slogans, for the most part, Iranian people admire and respect America and Americans and Jews generally. I say this because I have had the lucky ability to go there often since the revolution, both officially and as a guest/tourist. Everyone knows that I am an American Jew; that I don’t agree with everything the Islamic Republic believes in but that I want to hear what is going on in their lives.
BUT Iranians all over love their country, even as they may hate their government (just as Americans can and do) and if it were to be attacked by Israel in such a one handed way, and so obviously in the service of a defunct and morally deprived Bush Administration, internationally, Iran would benefit as their own people would do their best to defend. Israel would lose its last moral leg to stand on and be revealed to the world as much less than it was/is supposed to be and therefore, open itself up to such aggression and abuse, the like of which it has never yet seen .
I cannot believe that Israel would commit such an attack, one that will precipitate an unending slaughter. I cannot believe that the American Jewish people would applaud such either. But just because I cannot believe it doesn’t mean that it isn’t possible or even probable.
Iran is a country that has undergone a profound and extreme revolution; history has shown us that the other paradigmatic nations which have done so (France, Germany and Russia) took anywhere from 25-80 years to somewhat tidy themselves up. Somewhere, someone should show an understanding for these facts; I can only pray.
Iran is run by a bunch of loose cannons who need to be wiped out BEFORE they get a nuclear bomb-unfortunately, that may involve collateral damage
An Israeli Attack on Iran Benefits the Islamic Republic
As Israel contemplates militarily striking Iran to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons, Israel empowers the resolve of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s hardliners to achieve greater security while harming United States strategic interests, Israeli security interests, Iranian dissident interests, and world economic interests. Monday’s WSJ Editorial charges that Israel has, “no choice but to defend themselves,” against the Iranian threat.
Yet even if Iran’s nuclear sites were bombed, virtually nothing could prevent the regime from rebuilding its nuclear sites. Bombing Iran would only further exacerbate and reinforce the belligerence of the fundamentalist regime, alienate pro-America Iranians, radicalize moderate support behind the unpopular regime, provide a pretext for the regime to crack down on human rights, and undermine the democratic movement in Iran.
A report released by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), considered a major proponent of the pro-Israel lobby in the U.S., “does not advocate military action against Iran’s nuclear program. The time is not right for such a decision.” Instead the report considers an attack on Iran’s oil infrastructure, which accounts for 80% of its export revenue, far more noteworthy.
On Thursday in the Asia Times, national and international security affairs analyst David Isenberg contends that the political shock from losing oil income would force the regime to rethink its nuclear aspirations. Conversely, he points out that an attack on Iran’s oil infrastructure may force oil prices to skyrocket which would hurt consumers worldwide. News of Israel’s military exercise earlier this month caused the price of U.S. July crude to rise by US$2.69 and settle at US$134.62 a barrel last Friday.
An attack on Iran’s nuclear sites alone may cause crude oil to reach US$200 a barrel or more. Saturday’s Washington Post article interviewed PFC Energy analyst Mr. J. Robinson West who predicted, “A raid on Iran would convulse the markets. The price would go into uncharted territory. Pick a number.” The Post argues that the staggering cost of oil may dissuade U.S. military action or hamper the administration’s blessing of an Israeli attack.
An Israeli attack on Iran’s oil exporting infrastructure may lead to protracted war that would undoubtedly affect crude prices. Any temporary closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which ships nearly 40 per cent of the world’s oil, would force oil importing nations to rely upon oil exporting countries to make up for lost output. Inevitably, the regime will retaliate against an Israeli attack and possibly against American interests in the region with powerful long range missiles.
A state of mutually assured destruction is more than likely to develop between Israel and Iran due to the spread of technology. Consequently, Israel must reassess its long term security strategy with Iran and view the nature of Iran’s regime as its primary existential threat. Otherwise, only the Islamic republic stands to win.
Leave a reply