The Israelis and the Americans are zeroing in on a strike option that has a real chance of deterring the mullahs — and defusing Mitt Romney’s attacks.
[..]
Indeed, according to a source close to the discussions, the action that participants currently see as most likely is a joint U.S.-Israeli surgical strike targeting Iranian enrichment facilities. The strike might take only “a couple of hours” in the best case and only would involve a “day or two” overall, the source said, and would be conducted by air, using primarily bombers and drone support.
Advocates for this approach argue that not only is it likely to be more politically palatable in the United States but, were it to be successful — meaning knocking out enrichment facilities, setting the Iranian nuclear program back many years, and doing so without civilian casualties — it would have regionwide benefits. One advocate asserts it would have a “transformative outcome: saving Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, reanimating the peace process, securing the Gulf, sending an unequivocal message to Russia and China, and assuring American ascendancy in the region for a decade to come.”
While this approach would limit the negative costs associated with more protracted interventions, it could not be conducted by the Israelis acting alone. To get to buried Iranian facilities, such as the enrichment plant at Fordow, would require bunker-busting munitions on a scale that no Israeli plane is capable of delivering. The mission, therefore, must involve the United States, whether acting alone or in concert with the Israelis and others.
What does this have to do with Romney’s remarks? Were it clearer that the primary Iran option being discussed is this very limited surgical strike, then a U.S. threat of force would be that much more credible. And if it were more credible — because it seemed like the kind of risk the president is more willing to undertake — then it would have the added benefit of providing precisely the kind of added leverage that might make diplomacy more successful. In other words, the public contemplation of a more limited, doable mission provides more leverage than the threat of even more robust action that is less likely to happen.
With that in mind, and given the progress that the Israelis and the administration seem to have made in the past couple of weeks, it may be that the easiest way for the Obama team to defuse Romney’s critique on Iran is simply to communicate better what options they are in fact considering. It’s not the size of the threatened attack, but the likelihood that it will actually be made, that makes a military threat a useful diplomatic tool. And perhaps a political one, too.
CuriousAmerican Said:
You might be right about the nature of Hezbollah and the Lebanese shi’a. I haven’t researched their history, but I know that writer Fouad Ajami is a shi’a from Lebanon. He is not Arab, his ancestry was Iranian. His people settled in Amoun, Lebanon in the 19th century, I believe.
I believe Hezbollah will always be a very formidable force on the ground, especially because of their tactics and that they are dug in. I still worry that the IDF might be underestimating them. Ashkenazi would call for large-scale maneuvers and training with armor to prepare for the next conflict in Lebanon. I really wonder whether Merkava tanks can do that much given how Hezbollah digs into underground bunkers and spider holes. I’m no expert on military matters, though.
@ Canadian Otter:
We agree CO.
Netanyahu never had any intent to do a thing about the Iranian nuclear plans. Of the last 20 years of “governments” here, he has held office as PM during 6 plus years.
Other than silly James Bondish stunts no real conclusive actions have been taken, and will not be now or later either. If the elections… planners see gain on it, they may choreograph a smoke and mirror show sometime between now and elections, but Iran will be told well in advance to make sure they can hide the real stuff…
For the power control families here, AKA “elites”, is much more important that Iran be nuclear the not. They will make huge profits from new and terrific “defense” systems. Hundreds more political generals will be settled into power positions, etc.
And they will be able to finally destroy all Jewish semblance in Israel.
Anyone voting for Netanyahu, and most zombies will, is voting for an Obama clone.
As it is common here, the “combina” make sure that NO truly new people is allowed to gain political status.
Is there a chance that someone in the administration made the leak without Obama’s knowledge, so as to gauge and bring to the spotlight the American public’s reaction to such an eventuality? Maybe someone who tries to sell to a reluctant Islamophile Obama the idea that a strike on Iran could be used as a last resort if his reelection is threatened?
@ Arthur:
According to all polls I’ve seen a majority of Americans favor an attack to end the Iranian threat with a vast majority of Republican and a minority of Democrats with independent more or less split. A majority of all groups favor an Israeli attack. Oil companies and the oil producers want an attack as it will give them extraordinary profits. The Russian love the idea no matter what they say in public.
Iranian suppliers know that they have a chance to resupply Iran with the wherewithal for all destroyed equipment.
The only ones hurt besides Israel and Iran are the average Joe in the west and Asia who will be made to pay the costs of the economic fallout.
Calling elections now can be interpreted as a slick political move by BB to preempt the major opposition leaders before they can organize properly. Then as the head of a caretaker government he is freed from parliamentary opposition votes and can do pretty much whatever he chooses. The Knesset will be in recess dissolved until the elections. He can order an attack without needing anyone’s approval. In Israel Lame Duck means total power for a few months to a sitting PM.
I still don’t think BB has the political guts to order an attack. If it goes South he is finished politically. Only if BB is convinced Romney will win would he chance an attack. Obama would be virtually helpless.
Obama will not do it at this point, since the closing of the Straits of Hormuz so close to the election would send gasoline at the pump in the USA to $8+ per gallon. The effect of high gas and fuel prices would overwhelm any bump in support he would get from attacking Iran, and therefore, an attack would almost certainly guarantee defeat at the polls.
No way is Obama going to hit Iran.
He needs to discourage Israel from hitting Iran as long as they have the means to do so unilaterally, which I believe they do right now, as long as the U.S. cooperates (by at least making good losses, logistical support in a possible protracted ensuing war, and covering Israel in the UN).
But, under Obama, the U.S. won’t cooperate. This makes the prospect of an Israeli strike while Obama is in office rather remote. An uncooperative U.S. greatly complicates Israeli planning.
Through threats, reassurances, you name it, the U.S. under Obama will do everything they can to dissuade Israel from striking until Israel can no longer do this…but the U.S. still can.
At that point, Obama issues an ultimatun not to Iran, but to Israel: sign here for a Saudi-style “peace” [surrender] agreement with the PA, or we let Iran go nuclear.
I don’t believe this article at all. At most, it represents Obama whispering sweet nothings in Bibi’s ear with respect to Iran. He won’t really do it. No way.
@ Arthur:
True. This would not make me vote for Obama. I know that if Obama attacks Iran it is for the purpose of his reelection only. I do fear however that American voters will be fooled. And I also wonder what very high price Obama will exact from Israel for taking out Iran’s nukes.
@ CuriousAmerican:
CuriousAmerican Said:
I am quoting from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway#Israel_and_Palestine
“In 2009, Galloway received a Palestinian passport from Hamas leader Ismail Haniya”.
Why on earth would you even bother to hear what such a guy has to say.
It is obvious that all of his conclusions will be be influenced by his anti-Semitism.
If there IS an attack on Iran, I have to wonder if it would be staged…ie. They take out a ‘set up’ or sacrificial target while similar clandestine sites will be carrying out the activities going forward.
@ Bernard Ross:
Exactly! And it’s rather bewildering to watch countries with very high technology still fighting enemies with guns, albeit increasingly sophisticated guns.
Some high-tech methods of controlling, manipulating, or subduing an enemy defy the imagination. And they are at times rather simple to operate. Although rarely talked about, some of these methods have been known for quite some time. Readers can google “Tesla weapons”.
When countries (or individuals) use those mysterious weapons and newly developed ones, they don’t brag about it. The power of those weapons is enhanced by their secrecy. Those weapons are absolutely terrifying. No scifi writer could even imagine all of their potential.
Canadian Otter Said:
didnt i read that earthqueakes can be created? HMMMM???
Ladies and Gentleman,
Obama won everything back in 2008. Once he got in; that was it. He quickly let his people in via the Trojan Horse trap door. To take them out even if he left could be years. The damage has been done and the virus has infected the USA and the world. Don’t believe me, just look at what is happening in the Middle East, Africa and Europe. He did not do all of this, putting Obama into power was the cherry on top.
One war, a terrorist attack and you name it, he gets to stay in power from 1-2 years and finish his march to additional destruction. He is much too smug, and it is obvious…..he knows this and he can thumb his nose to one and all. All I can say is OY VEH!
FOREIGN POLICY magazine is the mouthpiece of the CFR, which stands for one world government, meaning the end of both american and Israeli sovereignty.
Both Bibi and Obama (and Romney) belong to this group. Also, Achmadinejad has been talking lately as if he belongs to this group, too. When one calls for a “new world order”, then we know that one is working for this group.
It’s all a game, folks.
@ SHmuel HaLevi:
ALL THAT BARKING by Israel hints the government hasn’t been serious about bombing Iran. Without the US doing the biting, or at least fully supporting Israel’s bombing, Israel is left to do all that meaningless barking hoping for a miraculous change of mind in the US administration.
I agree:
Netanyahu was elected to some extent because he seemed keen on bombing Iran. Now this sudden call for elections seems to indicate that the PM wants to use the threat of Iran one last time to help him win, before Israelis wake up to the reality of a nuclear Iran.
An aggressive nuclear Iran is not the only danger:
– Iran is on an earthquake zone. A major disaster waiting to happen.
– The race for a nuclear ME is on. Others will get their bomb too. My jaw dropped when I read that Israel does not oppose Jordan (or other Arab countries too, I suppose, including future Nazi Palestine?) building nuclear reactors for peaceful purposes. http://www.debka.com/newsupdate/2314/ Peaceful purposes? That’s how a nuclear arsenal sometimes gets its start.
Obama will NEVER bomb Iran. If anything he will “arrange” some small scale military action in the gulf, even a no-fly zone, but the US. will not bomb Iran nor will at this point Israel — not when there is now a better than even chance that Romney will win the election. Israel can wait until the spring.
@ Bernard Ross:
Why the leaks…
So Iran can safely store away all of its HF6 and original unprocessed Uranium ore.
So Iran can store away all of its trigger tubes and Polonium. etc.
It is all choreographed, including Netanyahu’s part on the shell game, sudden call for elections to get the zombies gyrating around a pole like drunken string tied rose beetles.
@ CuriousAmerican:
Curse Jesus if we don’t get off easily as it will be his fault?
The number of Israeli casualties in our many real wars attests to an enemy that fights well. They were poorly led which explains most of their military losses.
I don’t think either America or Israel will ever attack Iran, that said Obama might attack as a last option to garner (popular patriotic rally around the president) support to win the election if he really believes he will lose. Not for Israel but for himself as motivation and then in a very limited surgical strike.
I don’t believe Hamas or Hezbollah will attack Israel in any significant way as they stand to lose too much. Hamas control of Gaza and Hezbollah control of Lebanon. A price for both too high to give even to their masters in Iran. They have both come too far and why lose their hard fought gains?
Assad does not need the Iranian excuse to attack Israel, he has more problems on his plate than he can handle right now with Turkey threatening.
He has the attack Israel option open to him in any case and at any time. He is past requiring a casus belli.
Iran has to be taken out; but the Iranians are NOT Arabs. Iranians are not even Semites. Ethnically, they are Indo-Europeans. They know how to fight. This Israelis noted in 2006 that they expected Hezbollah to flee like the PLO, but Hezbollah put up a fight. The Israelis were shocked. Hezbollah stood and fought at times; something the Israelis did not expect. Something the PLO rarely ever did. The Shi’a in Lebanon are not even Arabs, they were Persians brought in a few centuries ago.
They may fight, and fight very hard.
I hope you are right; but World War III may break out. Nerve gas missiles may hit Tel Aviv.
Hezbollah may hit you with everything they got, while they still have time. Syria, though wounded, may go for broke. A wounded animal is the most dangerous.
Isaiah 17:1 The oracle concerning Damascus. “Behold, Damascus is about to be removed from being a city And will become a fallen ruin.
A prophecy regarding Damascus. Sounds like a nuke hits Damascus.
Israel would only use a nuke in desperation which would indicate Israel may get hammered real hard and Israel may be forced to nuke Damascus.
I think we are looking at a major war here, Ted.
Iran has to be taken out, but the consequences may be quite awful.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj4kLIY3dFo (This is George Galloway’s explanation)
Galloway may be an Iranian shill; but he may be right on this.
I hope I am wrong; but I fear nothing less than a World War will stop Iran.
At some point after 1938, removing Hitler became costly. That momemt for Iran became costly a long time ago.
There may be no other option.
But do not pretty it up. Expect a major retaliation.
Praise Jesus if Israel gets off easily; but I doubt it.
I hope I am wrong.
NO–he will NOT–Barack Hussein Obama–does not give a rat’s ass about Israel!
Since 2008 (even Time magazine ran an article), there have been rumors that Obama’s family connections (his name “Obama” has end-time meanings in Persian) are Shiite. Thus, Obama is working hand-in-hand with Iranians. He isn’t going to bomb them. More likely, he’ll take out the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia — after all, they’re America’s allies. Remember he promotes America’s foes and weakens America’s allies.
Wake up people!! the probability of the US attacking Iran before the elections in november is ZERO!!! (unless Iran attacks first, of course!).
the probability of Israel attacking Iran(without US involvement) before the elections is 10%
the probability of Israel ever attacking Iran (without US involvement) is 30%
the probability of Israel being successful in such an attack is 50%
Given the recent drone over Israeli air space incident, Israel should worry more about stopping Hamas, Hizbullah and Fatah than about Iran. The current, and past, Israeli leadership has castrated the IDF for so many years that it has become useless in anything other than dispossessing young unarmed settlers of their homes in the middle of the night.
G-d protect and save Israel in case of an actual armed conflict against a real army.
Never happen. The number of voters who would be pleased with an attack on Iran is infinitesimal. Yamit and Laura are not gonna put him over the top and they wouldn’t vote for him if he blew up Syria and Egypt too.
Maybe Obama’s leaking fake plans so as to induce complacency in Israel and her American supporters. Once reelected, he’ll “reassess.”
yamit82 Said:
election in november after octoer “surprise” has passed. dropped expectations cause more damage, doesnt make sense. who gains from this? it doesn’t make sense for obamas side to leak this The other side gets nothing, maybe a 3rd party goading (hope no jews involved)
@ Bernard Ross:
American elections and a scared of losing Obama?
does it make sense to signal a strike to the enemy, then why the leaks?
DOES OBAMA WANT TO BE PRESIDENT for another four years?
There may be an explanation for his poor performance in the first debate. Perhaps he just want out of the White House. Possible reasons:
– Maybe he’s just fed up with all the pressure and wants to get back to private life. He can spend the rest of his life doing all the fun and profitable things that former presidents do.
– Maybe he’s concerned that hounds like Jerome Corsi are getting a bit too close. The public are generally forgiving of former presidents.
– MAYBE HE KNOWS SOMETHING MOST PEOPLE DON’T. And this is REALLY SCARY. Perhaps it’s the imminent collapse of the economy, or a big natural disaster (there’s talk of a major earthquake in the US ahead), or some other issue that only he and his very close White House advisors know about.