Israel Will Hit Iran Unless Obama Says "NO"
Terrific piece by Roane Carey, Managing Editor of THE NATION in ALTERNET, reprinted from Tom's Dispatch.
Carey, who is spending a half year teaching in Israel, has no doubts that Israel plans to attack Iran unless President Obama lays down the law with Netanyahu.
Carey writes that Israelis operate under the assumption that without total military superiority over all other regional powers, it is doomed. They believe that Iran is quite willing to see itself destroyed to take Israel down with it. Crazy stuff. But this kind of apocalyptic thinking could lead Israel to hit Iran.
The results, according to Carey, would be disastrous.
Carey writes: "It should go without saying that an Israeli attack on Iran would have disastrous consequences. No matter what Washington might claim, or how vociferously officials there denounce it, such an attack would be widely understood throughout the Muslim world as a joint U.S.-Israeli operation.
"It would, as a start, serve as a powerful recruiting tool for extremist Islamist groups. In addition, an outraged Iran might indeed send commandos into Iraq, aid armed Iraqi groups determined to attack U.S. and government forces, shoot missiles into the Saudi or Kuwaiti oilfields, and attempt to block the Straits of Hormuz though which a significant percentage of global oil passes. Washington would certainly have to write off desperately needed cooperation in the war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Any attack would only strengthen the reign of the mullahs in Iran and reinforce the country's determination to acquire a nuclear deterrent force that would prevent future attacks. And keep in mind, Iran's nuclear program has overwhelming public support, even from those opposed to the current regime.
He concludes that it it's up to Obama to prevent this attack.
"Given the Netanyahu government's visible determination to attack, an ambiguous signal from Washington, something far less than a green light, could be misread in Tel Aviv. Anything short of a categorical, even vociferous U.S. refusal to countenance an Israeli attack might have horrific consequences. So here's a message to Obama from an observer in Israel: Don't flash the yellow light -- not even once."
I hope the President knows this.
When warmongers are placed in charge of a government, the inevitable result will be war.
Whether it is the USA with the NeoCons and George W. Bush or Israel with Netanyahu.
April 15, 2009 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Despite what you guys have to say, Israel will be well advised to attack Iran the sooner the better. As Europeans, we are not able nowadays to do anything like this. We simply have no balls for this yet. It will come, sometime in the future, but it the meantime, at least my friends and I, would like to see the Israelis doing this "dirty job" for us and for the rest of the normal world.
April 15, 2009 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is pre-emptive war becomming the norm for the 21st century?
And, How far in the future can a potential threat be recognized as being valid? 1, 10, 20, 100, 1000 years in the future?
.
This thinking is designed to perpetuate perpetual war.
April 16, 2009 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
A preemptive strike against Iran is totally moral and acceptable, since it will surely prevent us from much worse scenario in the future.
April 16, 2009 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
A preemptive strike against Iran is totally immoral and unacceptable.
The only "intelligence" indicating that Iran is working on an atomic weapons program is coming from those same people who declared that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction in 2002-2003, that Iraq was determined to develop an atomic weapons program (do you remember "a mushroom cloud" by Condi Rice?), was trying to purchase yellowcake from Niger, and was behind the 9/11 attacks on the USA. None of these claims had any basis in any facts.
April 16, 2009 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who cares about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq? Bush's preoccupation with this issue as a cause of war was a huge mistake. For my part, what Saddam did for Kurds was already more than enough in order to take him down. I admit though that the consequences of this war are indeed unbearable. All this should be resolved by dividing this country into 3 separate entities: Shia, Sunni and Kurds, with an equal access to the revenues from the oil trade.
April 17, 2009 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Yeh, a preemptive strike against Iran is totally moral and acceptable. It's like striking Hitler's Germany in let's say 1937 or 1938.
April 17, 2009 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only thing I can think of that could break the alliance between Israel and the US is if Israel did something as idiotic and suicidal as attack Iran. Surely Obama has made clear through Hillary Clinton that the US is strongly opposed to any Israeli attack on Iran. Then again, the Obama administration is adopting other very stupid and pernicious policies put forward by Bush so who knows?
April 15, 2009 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Would not an Israeli attack on Iran initiate a chain of events which would totally capsize the industrialized world? Any Israeli attack on Iran with an apparent tacit approval of the US would prompt an Iranian counter-attack, but any such threat would be asymetrical.
Why would the Iranians strike directly at Israel? They wouldn't. First, they could choose to strike through their proxies in Lebanon to harass the Israelis. Second, they could strike at the world's commercial traffic moving through the Strait of Hormuz. Third, they could move directly against US interests in Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. If the felt particularly suicidal, they could move to team up with the Taliban in Afghanistan to threaten US interests and assets. None of these would involve a direct action against the Israelis, but all would convey the message that the Iranians are not to be trifled with. The kicker is that the Israeli strike would have only delayed the Iranian nuclear weapon program while making at totally operational. What do the Israelis do in another five years after the US has been totally driven from the Middle East and the Iranians have confirmed the availability of nuclear weapons?
April 15, 2009 1:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Why would the Iranians strike directly at Israel? They wouldn't."
The one option you missed here is that the Iranians would directly attack the USA.
"What do the Israelis do in another five years after the US has been totally driven from the Middle East and the Iranians have confirmed the availability of nuclear weapons?"
That is simple - the Israelis would nuke Teheran and the Middle East would continue to escalate into a full fledged war, cutting off all oil supplies from there to the rest of the world.
The USA had better become energy independent by the time that hapens.
.
April 15, 2009 2:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Discussions about this question on the left seem to be based on the assumption that Iran will always act rationally and that it is not aggressive towards Israel. Despite lots of saber-rattling rhetoric on the part of the mullahs, their intentions are always assumed to be benign. Despite a long history of direct support for terrorists who strike at Israel - an act of aggression by any definition - people continue to blithely assume that Iran does not pose a threat to Israel and that possessing a nuclear weapon won't change that.
These assumptions might indeed be correct. But it is striking that every utterance out of Israel is taken at face value and everyone just knows that Israel is an irrational actor who is oblivious to the consequences of a military strike. Aggressive rhetoric out of Israel is to be taken literally while much worse rhetoric out of Iran can be explained away as just a bit of harmless over-the-top hyperbole.
The anti-Israel bias is just breathtaking sometimes.
My opinion, FWIW, is that the discussion leaves out two other possibilities: that Netanyahu is engaging in a bit of saber-rattling of his own and has no intention of actually launching an attack and that Iran truly does represent an existential threat to Israel.
I believe that Israel would NEVER launch an attack on Iran without (a) explicit agreement from the US administration and (b) clear evidence that Iran's nuclear program had accumulated highly-enriched uranium and a workable bomb design, neither of which are currently present. Current rhetoric coming from Netanyahu is designed to throw red meat to his hawkish base, just as the Iranian rhetoric is designed to appeal to the religious conservatives who are the base of support there. Iran is unlikely to attack Israel and Israel is unlikely to attack Iran. It's time to start realizing that both countries are a lot more rational than is commonly assumed.
April 15, 2009 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
And Israel never attacked and bombed a nuclear power plant in Iraq?
April 15, 2009 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
"In addition, an outraged Iran might indeed send commandos into Iraq, aid armed Iraqi groups determined to attack U.S. and government forces,..."
Yes. An Israeli attack on Iran is a de facto US attack on Iran.
April 15, 2009 8:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
You "hope the president knows this[?!]" What unbelievable conceit. Why do bloggers think that they know more than people who are actually responsible for millions of lives? In particular, why do any of you think that there is anything about this or any other issue that President Obama doesn't know more completely and more in its proper context than any of you ever will?
April 15, 2009 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Such deference to authority is truly depressing.
April 15, 2009 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
"(W)hy do any of you think that there is anything about this or any other issue that President Obama doesn't know more completely and more in its proper context than any of you ever will?"
Well, a couple of reasons.
* He's a fallible human being.
* He's only as good as the information being given to him.
* As Bill Joy of Sun Microsystems said about workers in the tech field, "Most of the smart people in the world don't work for you." This is true even for an organization as large as the US Federal government. A corollary of that is, most of the smart people in the world aren't in the loop that provides Mr. Obama with information.
* As my friend Jennifer Jumper once said, "You never know who's on the other side of the keyboard." It could be Bill Gates. It could be the equivalent of Mr. Gates in either the intelligence or foreign policy analysis field. Or it could be whatever stereotype you hold in your head of what kind of person comments here. But you simply don't know for sure.
April 16, 2009 3:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Old news.
April 15, 2009 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
"In addition, an outraged Iran might indeed send commandos into Iraq, aid armed Iraqi groups determined to attack U.S. and government forces..."
Of greater concern is that Iran would send commandos into the USA to attack the US Government.
April 15, 2009 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Carey writes that Israelis operate under the assumption that without total military superiority over all other regional powers, it is doomed.
The Israeli high command is many things, but stupid and crazy are not among them. Without total military superiority, Israel loses its total hegemony over the region - not its future. That's what the occasional outbursts of violence are meant to protect, that's the message conveyed to its neighbors. Additionally, the Israelis know peace must be kept at bay. With peace comes regional repair, reconsolidation, possibly even reparations. As long as the Israelis remain the embattled lion of the Levant, the myth of perpetual emergency will allay the complications - and expenses - of civilized peace.
April 15, 2009 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Israel is allowed to attack Iran then then an EMBARGO SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY IMPLEMENTED ON ALL BILATERAL TRADE.
Furthermore, All U.S. military and civil aid should be immediately stopped and finally a UNSC resolution should be considered to expel Israel from the UN.
If Israel is allowed to carry out such an unprovoked attack on a UN member state, then the world must take appropriate action.
As a British Jew I am astonished that the world could countenance such aggression. Israel certainly does not act in the name of world Jewry.
April 15, 2009 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
"the results would be disastrous" and "horrific consequences"
Even non-military experts and non-geopolitical experts know that. Anyone with some idea of the map of the middle east and a little imagination can figure that one out.
What puzzles me is why the leaders of Israel cannot figure that out. Are they blinded by their zeal, living in a bubble or are they insanely out of touch with reality?
Thanks MJ for highlighting this crisis.
April 15, 2009 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Even non-military experts and non-geopolitical experts know that. Anyone with some idea of the map of the middle east and a little imagination can figure that one out."
Bla-Bla-Bla
If you are not an expert, why do you think your biased subjective opinions are truth?
I say Israel should attack these guys first, before it's too late for everybody (including your Canada, or something), with or without our help.
I can't see any major crisis in taking this crazy Islamonazi regime down.
April 15, 2009 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I fear is that Israel may believe that because the Iranians are sure to see any Israeli attack as coming from the U.S. as well, an attack on Iran could conceivably be part of a deliberate strategy to preserve Israeli hegemony in the region, which would be threatened by a better U.S./Iranian relationship (and by I-P peace, for that matter).
April 16, 2009 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Israel attacks Iran, we need to sever our relationship with Israel, including immediate cessation of military aid.
If Israel attacks Iran, the Zionist experiment will have proven itself a failure, and Israel should be, to echo a quote falsely attributed to Ahmedinejad, wiped off the map.
April 15, 2009 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
wiped off the map ??
I'm sure you don't mean that all Israeli's should be killed. Could you say what you do mean?
April 15, 2009 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, hopefully, the Israelis with a shred of humility and common sense would leave the country, allowing it to fight the war against the rest of the Middle East that the Israeli government seems determined to provoke.
But the Netanyahu's and those civilians with a militant settler mentality? Yes, if they are determined to live by the sword, then they should die by it.
I'm really not a fan of warmongering, but I am getting to the point of believing that the only way to get Israel to act responsibly vis a vis its neighbors is to deal it a crushing military defeat.
April 15, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are "not a fan of warmongering", aren't you?
You are just antisemitic PIG, spending your days in misery because of Israel's very existence. They will attack Iran and they will succeed. Even if they loose the American support (and I don't think it's going to happen), America is not the only power nowadays and it is my country that supplied Israelis with submarines, which can carry the nuclear weapons.
April 15, 2009 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Easy, big fella. Wipe that drool off of your chin.
You didn't have a roommate by the name of Atta a few years back, did you? He seeemed to be fond of blowing up innocent people too.
April 16, 2009 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
According to the Israeli historian Shlomo Sand, the current Palestinians are most likely the original Jews who later converted to Islam. Also, according to the professor, Jewish people never existed as a 'nation-race', and never shared a common origin. Modern Jews are a mix of groups that at various stages in history converted to the Jewish religion.
So the current Israeli Jews, who are descendants of Jews by conversion and have no historical connection to the land, are decimating the land's original Jews (the Palestinians) who became converts to Islam.
Where is Rod Sterling. This is a Twilight Zone episode, for sure.
April 15, 2009 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for answering.
I understand how you might feel that a crushing military defeat of Israel could serve to bring about peace in the long run. Which is probably exactly what the war-like Israelis think about Hamas
For me,that's too high a price to pay. When it's over, the shooting stops, the families Israeli or Palestinian) emerge from the houses where they've been cowering we'll get to know the true cost. And it will be too high.
Maybethat war will result in better leaders coming to the fore. Maybe it will cause the people on one side of the other to yearn for peace and to petition their leades for peace. But the one thing of which we can be completely sure is that without doubt lots of people will die. Not the leaders whom you at least wouldn't miss. Ordinary folk who sell newspapers, or teach first graders
You're right to oppose War. Stick to that position.
April 15, 2009 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
The State Dept. is busy with some other things going on in Iran right now:
from
Trial Begins For Reporter Held by Iran As a U.S. Spy, New York Times, April 15.
Reminded me of this, see my bold:
Whether or not Saberi is C.I.A. doesn't really matter, what matters is that the Iranians want to make an issue of our spying.
April 15, 2009 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some Iranians.
Try reading-or at least skimming - a book called
"Answering Only to God".
The majority of the population opposes Khamenei as shown by the vote for Khatami in 96. Since when the Khamenei branch of the clerics has arranged to prevent any subsequent honest votes which would produce the same result.
I emphasize branch since he is despised by a substantial segment even of the believers. The secularists of course completely reject him.
It's also interesting to read about the Kermit Roosevelt overthrow of Mossadech which goes a long way towards explaining the readiness of even Khamenei's opponents to believe that the CIA is, again, trying to destroy their country.
Even a paranoid usually has some one who does actually hate him!
It's by no means a given that we can never have good relations with Iran.In fact the exact opposite may well be true.
Unless we blow it.
Or allow Israel to blow it for us.
Not only do I wish to protect Israel, as I've written here many time I think we should do that by permanently stationing a substantial US force there (as in South Korea) I'd infinitely rather provide it with a sense of security that way than by permitting it to attack Iran.
April 15, 2009 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I know. I most certainly was thinking here only of the current Iranian government, not the people. It's the government the State Dept. has to deal with, and the government(s) that all of these problems are about. But actually, if we are atill doing covert ops, besides spying, we could also be encouraging activities against the current government, which would naturally cause precisely the type of arrests we have seen here and in the past as with the Iranian-American scholars Haleh Esfandiari and Kian Tajbakhsh in 2007. Any Iranian-American of any stature visiting Iran who has spoken against the government there in any way is then suspect when visiting. Or even if they haven't spoken out, but are just visiting or talking with those who are labeled as "dissidents."
Basically my point is that this situation certainly makes any diplomacy vastly more difficult, that State has to resolve this kind of mess before they can move on to anything else. The response quoted here that they consider "Washington's intervention" to be a breach of intenational law is not a good sign, not good at all, looks like the government doesn't want to talk to us about anything, doesn't believe we are being straight, it's like they are saying to the Obama administration "the nerve! you are unbelievably outrageous! you send spies and then expect to have a discussion." Even if this is intentional make-believe on their part, or agitprop intended to rile up "don't trust America" sentiment, it's not a good sign.
April 16, 2009 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. I find a particular detail to be an especially bad sign, that she was arrested in January and has only had the charge of working without proper press credentials, until last week, when the charge of spying for America was introduced. That is definitely ramping negativity up from their end, to my mind.
April 16, 2009 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
One more than chilling detail from the book I mentioned. The faction associated with Khamanei,or perhaps one faction, on occasions installs listening devices in the homes of their intended victims so the actual killing can be overheard.
The authors were under no illusions, indeed fled in fear of their lives. But also provide a picture of a very different parallel society not ready to revolt but more than ready to welcome a modern civil society.
Of course we are properly suspect not only because of the Mossadech overthrow but also our overly close relationship with the Shah(whom I consider an ambiguous figure, rather than a cartoon dictator) given the cruel tactics of his secret police.
One of the ironies of Iran's almost uninterrupted
succession of tyrants (with the sad exception of Mossadech) is that the majority of Shiite clergy believe there should not be a Pope-like dominant religious authority but it should be much more a matter of individuals finding the truth for themselves.
If only.
April 16, 2009 7:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
When reporters come from a country that celebrates their "embedding" with the government's military to run a pro-government propaganda campaign (i.e., the War of Agression Against Iraq), we should not be surprised that some countries view American journalists CIA operatives.
April 16, 2009 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
So now Iran has taken a page out of the USA's handbook for dealing with "enemy combatants", holding them without charges, without trial, without access to lawyers, and not letting them face their accusers or have access to an attorney, not letting them know when charges are made against them, or what those charges are.
Sad, but understandable since the USA started this type of miscarrage of justice.
We will now see how the USA reacts to their own "legal" theories being used against US citizens.
April 16, 2009 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Despite the State Department's assertions, I have no idea whether Ms. Saberi is or is not an innocent person caught up in an international chess game.
What everyone should recognize is that the United States is indeed spying inside Iran, and most likely using Iranian-Americans for that purpose.
"Free-lance journalist" is a convenient cover, so such people are going to be under heavy scrutiny.
Iran rightly feels it is under attack.
The U.S. has long funded separatist movements on Iran's borders that have killed hundreds of border guards, police and government officials. The Israelis have assassinated nuclear scientists.
And the U.S. has kept in reserve, within Iraq, the anti-mullah MEK militia that even the State Department designates a terrorist group.
When Khamenei responds to Obama's peace overture by saying he expects actions to back up the president's words, those are the first issues he wants dealt with.
April 16, 2009 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink