Rumors of Israel Attack on Iran Show the Media as Clueless

By Barry Rubin, PJ MEDIA

Here’s a great case study of why so much of the reporting or analysis on the Middle East is so bad. Articles in the Jerusalem Post and Haaretz have led to speculation and concern–even in high levels of the U.S. government–about whether Israel is about to attack Iran. The Guardian and Daily Mail have even predicted that the British government is going to attack Iran. For goodness sake, is anyone actually studying these issues?

In fact, this story is full of holes.

First, Israel has decided not to attack Iran–a point I’m making due both to direct knowledge and direct statements, a few of them made publicly, by those involved in the debate. The reasons for this decision make sense but I won’t list them here to save your time.

Second, there is no new development to prompt such an attack. On the contrary, all of the reports have been about the slow pace of Iranian progress toward obtaining deliverable nuclear weapons. There is no urgency in such an operation.

Third, all the reasons for not attacking Iran are stronger than ever. Israel can expect little international support, the moves toward radicalism in Egypt, Lebanon, Libya, Tunisia, and Turkey (plus a heightened risk-taking by a shaky Syrian regime) make the environment for such an attack far more dangerous for Israel than a year or two ago. And again there is no vital incentive for launching such an attack.

Fourth, the Jerusalem Post article doesn’t even say that Israel is thinking of attacking Iran but only that there is a plan and that practicing is going on by the Israeli military. I should hope so but that proves nothing about an imminent attack. The Haaretz article says that Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu has asked the cabinet to make such an attack. If that’s true there’d be a lot more leaks and since Netanyahu not so long ago persuaded the cabinet not to do it that also sounds doubtful. But again, even if true that wouldn’t be an imminent attack but a start for a new round of debate.

How to explain this story?

CONTINUE

November 3, 2011 | 3 Comments »

Leave a Reply

3 Comments / 3 Comments

  1. 5. Israel simply cannot depend on U.S. or European support for such an operation and for weathering the dangerous aftermath.

    Then there’s the British government and the Obama Administration. Are these two more likely to attack Iran or seek a new deal with Tehran? Is anyone looking at their record, rhetoric, and worldview?

    Are the US and Europe more likely to support Israel in the future? I dare say, not. At present, both powers are so entangled in domestic economic problems, they cannot seriously interfere with an Israeli strike. What’s more, the US plans to quit Iraq in a few weeks, removing the only serious impediment out of Israel’s way

    6. There’s a lot more that should also be part of the discussion. As usual, Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post gets it right. But on watching the response of many others to such developments I keep thinking about New York Yankees’ manager Casey Stengel’s famous lament: Can’t anyone here play this game?

    There certainly is more to discuss — such as Turkey’s virtual declaration of war against Israel, its increased naval belicosity and its massing of troops on the border of Syria. They are clearly Israel’s enemy; and if they are given time to occupy Syria before Israel has taken care of Iran, Israel will have the combined militaries of Turkey AND Iran on its northern border (not to mention its eastern border as well, if we wait for Iran to take over Iraq). Right now is definitely an opportune moment to strike.

  2. 3. Israel has gone for the kind of strategy used by the United States in the Cold War. It is building up both missile and plane forces that would simultaneously provide an effective attack on Iranian facilities and launchers plus the most effective possible defense against Iranian attack.

    Both the US and the Soviet Union, which were respectively the third-largest and largest countries on earth, were big enough to absorb a first strike and retaliate with a fatal second strike. Both the US and the Soviet Union, moreover, had rational governments devoid of religious fanaticism. Israel is small enough to be completely destroyed by one nuclear weapon, and the Iranians are ruled by a fanatical theocracy that values death in jihad above national survival. A “Cold War” strategy, therefore, will not work between Israel and Iran

    4. Keep in mind two key points: Iran is far less likely to attack Israel with nuclear weapons than many people in the West think (I’ll explain that another time) and Iran needs a fair number of simultaneous firings to launch a serious attack (easier to detect if being planned and requiring far more than one or two nuclear weapons).

    Thousands of Hizbullah rockets rained down on Israel during the last Lebanon War, and the Hizzies now have more and improved rockets and missles. What’s more, Hizbullah has made successful amphibious landings in Israel that completely escaped detection. By air and sea, then, Israel’s borders are vulnerable to attack. Iran doesn’t have to fire ANY missles against Israel to perpetrate a nuclear attack; it has two proxies that can do it for them.

  3. Barry Rubin wanted a serious discussion, so I’ll give him one. I’ll chop up this article into multiple posts, to try to get around the spambotter.

    1. An attack would not stop Iran’s program but only delay it while guaranteeing that Tehran would be in a state of war with Israel and far more likely to use nuclear weapons.

    Tehran is already in a state of War with Israel, through its HAMAS and Hizbullah proxies using its weapons and crews. Iranian missle crews attacked an Israeli ship during the Lebanon War, in case anyone is looking for a casus belli.

    2. There’s no sense in hitting Iran unless it is on the verge of obtaining deliverable nuclear weapons (a situation that would offer some different targets from those available today).

    There is sense in hitting Iran whenever doing so is relatively advantageous to Israel. There is, on the other hand, no sense in doing so when this is NOT advantgageous. Right now, Iran is weak and Israel is strong — the best possible reason for attackingt them. Iran is in the process of moving its weapons production facilities into impregnable facilities, so it makes more sense to strike them now than to do so later.