At first I was going to ignore this story as too speculative, but I changed my mind.
I saw Gen Amidror speak in December at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ conference on Iran. What struck me at the time was that he was very clear that Israel would strike Iran as a last resort. One of the panelists from the AEI as I recall, wasn’t buying all his bluster. This offended him and he came back with something to the effect “I don’t bluster”. He wasn’t in the empty gestures business. A few months later, Dagan resigned and went pub;lic with his misgivings about attacking Iran. See: Dagan: Israeli airstrike on Iran nuclear plant ‘foolish’
Then Amidror replaced him as the Israel National Security Advisor. The question of where Amidror stood on the question was analysed in the article Is Netanyahu’s New Adviser In The “Attack Iran” Camp?. The answer is becoming obvious. Ted Belman
JPOST and YNET
Israel will probably attack Iran in September, Robert Baer, a veteran CIA officer who spent 21 years in the Middle East including in Lebanon and Syria, told a Los Angeles radio show on Tuesday.
While the CIA officer didn’t reveal the sources behind his prediction, he referred to former Mossad chief Meir Dagan’s warnings of an Israeli attack on
Baer told the KPFK Los Angeles show Background Briefing that previous comments made by Dagan that an Israeli attack on Iran could lead to a regional war “tell us with near certainty that Netanyahu is planning an attack, and in as much as I can guess when it’s going to be, it’s probably going to be in September before a vote on the Palestinian state.”
Baer added that Netanyahu is “also hoping to draw the United States into the conflict, and in fact there’s a warning order inside the Pentagon to prepare for conflict with Iran.”
The senior CIA officer predicted a scenario in which Israel would attack the Natanz nuclear facility as well as “a couple of others to degrade their capabilities.”
“The Iranians will strike back were they can and that will be in Basra and in Baghdad,” where the US has a diminished troop presence, Baer said, adding “we’ve started to look at Iran’s targets in Iraq and across the border.”
Baer, however, diffused predictions of regional war, saying “What we’re facing here is an escalation, not a planned all-out war.”
“Like who?” I’m assuming you mean enemies America and Israel have in common. This list is not inclusive but I think is a good start. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah, and pretty much pick any Middle Eastern country. Much of America’s “aid” to these countries takes the form of black mail. This is yet another reason for Israel to cut America loose. America can’t or won’t stand up for its basic interests. I see no reason for Israel to work with such people. Perhaps at some point the American people and the American government will get their act together. Until then I think Israel should try to put as much distance between it and America as possible.
Israel is much more likely to defeat these joint enemies without American involvment than they are with American involvement. As such, by advocating this policy I’m actually advocating a policy that serves America’s best interests but only America is obligated to act in America’s best interests. Israel should act in its best interests regardless of what the Americans do.
“Who says?” I think most any analyist who is not on the take would probably agree with the quote. America has allowed its conventional and especially its nuclear capabilities to diminish while the Russians and Chinese have increased their military capabilities. In a military confrontation, it is unlikely that the Americans could expect to prevail against either Russia or China.
Also, the Russians and Chinese are not going to sit idly by, if their Iranian ally is attacked. They will get involved militarily. This is especially likely if the Americans are involved in some way, as they won’t want to pass up the chance to give the Americans a proverbial black eye. Any scenario has to assume Russian and Chinese involvement. If it doesn’t, it is worthless and should not be taken seriously.
While I agree that the aid to Israel’s enemies seems unconditional unlike the aid Israel receives, the Arabs can and do get aid and other assistance from a number of places and countries. The loss of American assistance to them is unlikely to weaken them very much or other wise make much of a difference in any thing they do or might consider doing but the lack of American interference in Israeli affairs, as we agree, will be a huge benefit to Israel far outweighing the cost associated with the loss of American aid.
As I have said elsewhere, the governments of the EU, Russia, and the US claim to want a peaceful resolution to the Arab/Israeli conflict and the governments of the EU, US, and Russia claim to want a two state solution as part of this peaceful resolution. If this really is what they want, then the first place to start would be to cut off all aid to the “Palestinians” or at least make it highly conditional much like the aid Israel receives. This would place the parties on much more equal footing than they are currently on. In such a scenario, the “Palestinians” would be much more likely to negotiate in good faith than they are right now. From the actions of the governments of the EU, Russia, and the US, I must conclude either they want somethign other than what they claim to want or they are blinded by ideology.
In any event, I can’t speak for what Israel should do, as I’m not an Israeli and don’t understand fully understand its situation but from my perspective Israel should immediately cut off all ties to America and should chart its own course completely independent of America. The net benefits of being free from American interference would be tremendous. In any event, America needs Israel far more than Israel needs America.
@ B.Poster:
B.Poster Said:
Who says?B.Poster Said:
Agree!B.Poster Said:
Like who? America is the prime benefactor of military and diplomatic aid to most of Israels enemies. They collectively far offset any aid Israel receives from America and their aid seems to be without strings unlike ours.
@ B.Poster:
I am deeply concerned about the possible ramifications recited in your comment.
Yet. We are not longer victims of opportunity so others can survive in peace. That era is gone. It ended in the ovens. Should extreme islamic Iran make any move to possessing a viable nuclear device, it must be eliminated.
Several countries helped to create the monster and others wiggled out of confronting that. Regretfully many Israeli governments broke under pressure and also avoided direct action.
Which brings me to the now famous meeting at the WH between the ocupant and Mr. Netanyahu.
I believe the fellow with the birth certificate and many others missed much of the message.
I am not a spoksmen for anyone here but I believe I understood far more than what was said.
Israel will act as need be.
If Mr. Baer is trying to instigate anit0Israel sentiment, a very real possibility, there is a way to solve this problem. Withdraw all American forces and military assets from the Middle East. This way they cannot be into a military conflict against Iran. This is what should happen. Frankly, US forces should be redeployed to America;s borders where they have a fighting chance to defend America.
America and Israel both hane an Iranian problem. Israel is in a much better position to actually solve this joint problem than Aemria is. Israel is much more likely to be successful if America gets out of the way and stops meddling in Israel’s affairs.
Even if the end of American meddling in Israeli affairs means the loss of all aid to Israel, the net benefit to Israel of operating without American interference would far outweigh the costs to Israel of a cut off in American aid.
Since Israel and Aemrica have many of the same enemies, an end to American interfernce in Israeli affairs would be a positive development for both countries.
With all due respect there is a huge problem with the scenarios put forth by the Brookings Insttitute. In the event of an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, Iran’s allies of Russia and China are unlikely to sit idly by while this happens. It is more likely than not that Russia, China, or very likely both of them will intervene militarily in support of their Iranian allies. What happens then? Also, Iranain forces or terrorist allies may attack the American main land. What happens then?
It would seem prudent to put these possibilties into any scenario. Russia and China possess the first and second most powerful military forces on earth respectively. The chances of them not militarily aiding their Iranian ally is virtually nill. As such, it seems any analyst worth his or her salt would factor this into the scenario. Also, an Iranian attack on the US main land could kill millions of Americans and/or further devestate its already fragile economy. This should be in the scenario as well.
Very respectfully any secnearios that do not factor in things such as this simply are not good scenarios. Its very distressing that people seem to be paying money for scenarios like this. Americans can only hope and pray that, in private, that their leaders are comingn with far more realistic scenarios and are planning accordingly.
@ gurza:
Sorry to hear that. The last time we checked US diplomats do not represent other governments.
Regretfully the US voters selected an “administration” that a growing number of states worldwide, including Israel as well as the Saudis, see as completely unreliable if not worse. Therefore I estimate that they will act based on their unique interests. Naturally we all wish to be able to support rational US roles, yet, committing suicide on their behalf is not one of them. To be honest with you, it is hard to ascertain what is the US expecting to happen out there in Afghanistan, etc.
Without a complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from both Iraq and afghanistan, Israel will do nothing. That has been made clear on numerous occasions by U.S. diplomats.
@Mladen Andrijasevic, Israel –
I would tend to agree with Bernard lewis. There are a few authoritative reports that Iran has already several nukes in its inventory of weapons. A case of too little, too late.
Self prservation goes without saying. Its just that, if it is possible, it would be better to delay. But I’d support Israel’s action if they were to NUKE Iran. Doing a job the USA should be taking care of.
4@SHmuel HaLevi –
I’ve read two of Baer’s books. He’s no friend of Israel – a mixture of typical east coast blue-blood knee-jerk disdain for Jews, and spending a LOT of time around Arabs/Moslems who whine about Israel – but he’s definitely no friend of Iran’s regime or even the Saudis for that matter, for whom he has a great deal of contempt. I think he’d like to knock Iran down a peg himself, but he wants to do it on our timetable, not Israel’s, and there is some jealosy at work that it is those pushy Jews who are going to do this, rather than us.@Laura –
@Bryan K Donnelly –
I have to assume that the Israeli government is carefully weighting the relative merits of most other states needs. In particular the USA. We are closely linked to each other. Further to that, I venture to say that Israel has certainly been doing that for decades and in the while Iran has advanced to our terrible danger. That cannot continue.
We here in Eretz Israel will do whatever we must do to neutralize that danger. Constraints placed by other states have caused our extreme endangerment. We would be very happy if the innevitable decisions fall within the parameters likely to help others, but not at our people’s risk.
IF POSSIBLE, WAIT UNTIL WE GET RID OF MARXIST THIRD WORLD ADVOCATE OBAMA
I don’t know the strategic imperatives Bibi is facing, but if at all possible he should delay any such action until we vote out Obmama next fall and a new president is inaugrated in January 2013. There are two important reasons.
1. Israel can NOT be sure that it’s ally the United States would back it in the UN Security Council, much less militarily. If the Jewish state were to be directly attacked one rather imagines that the idiot currently occupying the White House would limit his support to a “strong note” and call for “negotiations.” Better to wait until a grownup lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, after January 20th 2013.
2. Isreal’s acition might effect the US election next November in Obama’s favor. When world crises occur Americans tend to rally behind the guy in power. Such a rally could, despite a miserable economy that’s not getting any better thankns to Obama poliices, actually produce his re-election; today a remote possibility. The USA, Israel, and the world can not afford four more years of Obamaism.
@Bert –
I agree. By the cumulative activities taking place here, I sense that the time is nearing but the protocol may not be as many of us think it will be.
America and the west has had decades of opportunities to deal with Iran at low cost. The U.S has refused to support the reform forces inside Iran when there was an opportunity.
Too many other countries were happy to trade with Iran to make profits while knowing full well they were supporting total evil. Therefore Israel owes NOTHING to any other country. Their only concern should be for their own survival regardless of the consequences to those other countries who would gladly see Israel destroyed.
Many are cited that had the influence to at least attempt to change the decision making that took place while they had access to power centers. Obviously to a great extent they failed and it would be extremely unwise to seek their opinions again.
Much as the rest of us I do not have access to the latest intelligence or planning.
But one may extrapolate.
The fact is that ALL of those that committed serious errors if not worse and held back from taking on the enemy while the military price tag was reasonable have been removed from direct power decision making. Up to the point of having, in Dagan’s case preventing him from extended use of his Diplomatic Passport.
One has to assume that STUXNET was and is a platform, not an isolated program.
Further to that, one may assume that not only nuclear processes would be targetted.
As Iran is still away from being nuclear armed, Israel should first clip the Iranian proxies and then attend to Iran.
SO I may suggest that Hezbollah and Syria will be first neutralized and then Iran itself if all else fails.
Robert Baer may be right about the attack, but he is completely wrong about the Israeli motives for the attack. Robert Baer apparently does not take Bernard Lewis’s opinion on this issue seriously.
For years the leading western scholar of Islam Prof Bernard Lewis has been warning that the mutual assured destruction doctrine will not work with Iran. Just recently, in the documentary Iranium he said :
“What makes this particularly alarming is the whole question of nuclear weapons. During the Cold War both the United States and the Soviet Union had nuclear weapons. That they did not use them, and they knew that we are not going to use them, because of what we used to call at that time MAD – Mutual Assured Destruction. Each side knew that if they used nuclear weapons the others would respond in kind and this would obliterate everybody.
With these people, with their apocalyptic mindset, mutual assured destruction is not a deterrent, it is an inducement “
Reza Kahlili, the CIA agent who for 10 years risked his life working under cover as a member of the Iranian Republican Guards, said:
“Once they get the nuclear bomb, and they have the nuclear capability, and anybody can determine this because they are running multiple convert operations, parallel projects of nuclear bomb and missile delivery systems. It is a parallel project for one purpose, and I can argue both sides of the coin, but my belief is that .this is a messianic regime, there should be no doubts, they will commit the most horrendous suicide bombing in human history. They will attack Israel, European capitals and Persian Gulf region at the same time, then they will hide in a bunker waiting for the Mahdi to get out of that well, ride the white horse, draw that sword and kill the rest of the nonbelievers.”
Israel will soon have a four tier missile defense system consisting of Arrow3, Arrow 2, David’s Sling and Iron Dome, protecting Israel from the Iran launched missiles to ones launched from the Gaza strip. But even this sophisticated system is not perfect and it is obvious that MAD is dead. Israel is not the US, and would not survive if even one bomb launched by the undeterred by MAD Iranians penetrates the Israeli defenses.
This leads us to the inevitable conclusion that Israel will have to destroy with a preemptive strike the Iranian nuclear facilities. Stuxnet gave Israel some time. It is now running out.
A Nuclear Iran What, Finally, Is To Be Done? (Second Of Two Parts)
Louis René Beres
Posted Jul 07 2011
Looking back, we certainly ought to have listened to Moshe Ya’alon’s (andProject Daniel’s) advice from the start. Today, however, it would seem that Meir Dagan’s contrary and dire warnings against preemption, regrettable as they may appear, are now indisputably spot on. As for promoting any particular “regime change” in Tehran, it is always possible, if not distinctly plausible, that the successor regime will prove even more theocratic, dangerous and refractory than the present government.
Read more
A Nuclear Iran: What, Finally Is To Be Done? (A Column in Two Parts)
Louis René Beres
Posted Jun 29 2011
No country, as Thomas Jefferson once wrote, has the right of national suicide. Rather, every state’s first obligation is always the assurance of protection. Innocent life must always be preserved.
When Iranian leaders openly proclaim belief in the Shiite apocalypse, a series of final battles presumed a precondition or sine qua non for transforming the profane “world of war” into the sacred “world of Islam,” even the most difficult measures of national self-defense/survival must be considered.
Are there also issues of “justice” in this particular matter? Some would argue indignantly against any American and/or Israeli preemption on the grounds of a presumed need for nuclear “equity” in world politics. Israel, after all, already has nuclear weapons. Why, then, should Iran be treated differently?
International law speaks repeatedly of “sovereign equality.” Isn’t there an evident lack of “fairness” in denying to Iran what has tacitly been allowed to Israel? Read more
Sounds to me like Baer is trying to instigate anti-Israel sentiment.
While the Stuxnet virus and others attempts to derail Iran’s nuclear programme are helping, it does seem that Iran will get there, unless serious action is taken. Either this means international action and further sanctions that bring about the fall of Iran and regime change, or possibly a tactical strike. Check out the Brookings Institution simulation on what would happen if Israel were to strike Iran for a detailed possible scenario. Also, please vote in the poll on my website, Democracy Standard , on whether or not Israel should take direct action against Iran.