Drumbeat for war (cont.)
The leaking, counter-leaking, information and disinfo continue with the story in today’s (Wed.) NYTimes offering armchair calculations about how Iran would respond to an Israeli attack.
“While a missile retaliation against Israel would be virtually certain, according to these assessments, Iran would also be likely to try to calibrate its response against American targets so as not to give the United States a rationale for taking military action that could permanently cripple Tehran’s nuclear program.” Here.
Does this invite U.S. acquiescence in an Israeli attack? Or does it show how brave (or foolhardy) Israel is, and how prudent (or cowardly) the U.S. is?
In the article, an Israeli official offers this calculation: “’If Iran is struck surgically, it will react — no doubt,’” said the former Israeli official, echoing Mr. Barak’s comments last year. “’But that reaction will be calculated and in proportion to its capabilities. Iran will not set the Middle East on fire.’
“”Is 40 missiles on Tel Aviv nice?’” the official asked, summing up the Israeli calculus. “’No. But it’s better than a nuclear Iran.’”
Really? If I lived in Tel Aviv this conjecture would not reassure me…. but I live in New York where there have been real terrorists attacks….
And here’s an eye-opener in Ha’aretz: “Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to publicly harden his line against Iran during a meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama in Washington on March 5, according to a senior Israeli official.
“Israel wants Obama to make further-reaching declarations than the vague assertion that “all options are on the table,” the official said. In particular, Netanyahu wants Obama to state unequivocally that the United States is preparing for a military operation in the event that Iran crosses certain “red lines,” said the official; Israel feels this will increase pressure on Iran by making clear that there exists a real U.S. threat.”
And read on about various Netanyahu efforts at lobbying the U.S. Congress.
M.J.Rosenberg has these observations at Media Matters.
I do not find it surprising that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu might want President Obama to harden his public line regarding Iran.
But I will be surprised if Netanyahu succeeds in persuading Obama to harden his public line regarding Iran.
Of course I may be mistaken about this. We’ll see.
The Ha’aretz story points to serious Republican pressures supporting Netanyahu; and I’d be surprised if Democratic Congress members aren’t there too, if more behind the scenes. I hope you’re right about Obama!
Check out the comments now posted at the Times story. Doesn’t look like there’s much enthusiasm for a U.S. attack, or complicity in an attack–at least among Times’ readers.
One thing to consider in all this is that it wouldn’t be happening if the rest of the world had come together to put effective pressure on Iran to get rid of its nuclear program. This is very much a political failure.
The world needs another hot war in the Middle East like it needs an outbreak of the plague, but, hopefully, intelligent politicians (oxymoron alert) and planners everywhere have been talking a lot and planning worst-case scenarios, so that the damage from whatever happens will be minimized.
Thanks for the News of interest… Looks like we gave the Israeli right the ‘right’ to make a declaration of war for the US. The 3 GOP candidates who never served in the military are all for a first strike on Iran. US bishops’ religious liberty is severely threatened when Catholic Taco Bells will have a BC mandate if the Bells ever offer their employees health insurance which is forever doubtful especially if the GOP gets the House or WH in 2013.
So Netanyahu wants”bright red lines” drawn by Israel and the U. S. to determine whether Iran, by crossing them, would subject itself to military attack, a first-strike military attack. What “red lines,” drawn by whom, would Netanyahu himself feel bound to respect? None, so far as I can see.
And we as a nation seem unable even to suggest that our foreign policies ought not to be held hostage whatever Israel wishes. Whatever security measure they wish to have us endorse and underwrite seems to become a demand we must provide.
This is a Christian failure. Not a political failure. The Christian (in words) W Bush invaded Iraq. He was supported completely by the religious right. Many moderate Christians also. The worst case scenario has already happened. It is Christians who wage preemptive war. But, of course, Christians have been bellicose for a long time…….
Israel has been attacked by its enemies before. Before Israel established fortifications on Golan Heights—Syria flew over the border and attacked a small Israeli town. The Syrian fighter jets, in particular, trained their gun-fire on a school bus which was carrying primary school children on their way home from school. Thirty-five young children between the ages of 5-9 lost their lives in this senseless attack.
During the Six-Days War—upon hearing that a number of their soldiers were wounded in the fighting, Israelies in all of their cities and towns—lay down together on the sidewalk—so that the Red Cross could—more easily get their blood—to give to ‘their kids’ (all Israeli young people go into the military after high school). When these recruits have completed their training and are being sworn into official military service—they recall how many times in their ancient past that Israel was defeated and its people led into captivity. They swear “Israel will never fall again.”
I do not know what the rest of the world would do or what the United States would do—but Israel will not back down from Iran’s nuclear threats.
Just to keep our facts straight. Iran has no nuclear weapons. Israel has approx 400.
Little Bear,
Perhaps you should distinguish. The United States will protect any of its allies from a nuclear attack. So it will not back down. The question here is do we invade nations because they want a level playing field. The reason there have been no wars between nuclear powers is the fact that all realize the insanity of nuclear warfare. It can well be argued that nuclear arms is the best avenue for peace.
I don’t know, Bill. Remember “Peace Is Our Profession”?
Mutual Assured Destruction apparently kept the US and the USSR from incinerating each other because the size of their nuclear arsenals was world-destroying, but can’t you imagine small players like Iran and Israel resorting to tactical nuclear weapons? That wouldn’t necessary escalate, especially if that’s all they have and none of the big players lose control of their senses and their arsenals in sympathy.
Level playing field? Ah, c’mon, Bill. It’s only fair that Iran have nuclear weapons?
Tactical nuclear weapons is not all that Israel has.
Margaret, Iran has SAID that it has no nuclear weapons. If it didn’t HAVE nuclear weapons, we wouldn’t be having any problem, now would we?
Well many governments, including our own, Israel, EU, have problems with the possibility of Iranian nuclear weapons. U.S. intelligences services, the IAEA (in charge of inspections), and even the Israeli intelligence services issue reports saying that Iran does not have nuclear weapons. The conflict with Iran involves their continuing work on refinement of nuclear fuel that could someday be weaponized.
Be in favor of an attack, if that’s your view, but facts are pretty important here….
I am not in favor of war. But I don’t believe Iran for one instant.
And no nation, especially Israel, surrounded by Arab Nations that wish to erase
if off of the map—-are going to sit back and PRETEND that Iran is not working
24/7 to develop nuclear weapons and long-range weapons which could hit
the United States, too.