The so what is this.... in 1981 Reagan and Weinberger were FURIOUS with Begin for reasons of non consultation (though Begin was unquestionably right as history shows), today though, IF (and a big if) Israel is to get at Iran they have to cross Iraq, OR Jordan/KSA.
If that story is right, they are not coming across Iraq, or it's swarm of F-15's, F-16's, and F-18's
If that story is right, they won't have american KC-10's and 135's to cooperatively refuel from.
That makes the mission vastly more difficult, if the major portion is to be by air, if the Kadima gov has a pair to begin with, and of course if they did, Hizballah would be dead or crippled and Bush might have a very different outlook. Though I doubt it.
Glick is proposing bombing, which is the right thing to do, in my opinion, and then in the wake of that, she is proposing sanctions.
And, Carl thinks that is going too far?
The bombing won't topple Iran, as the article clearly states, so how is it going too far.
Sanctions have proven themselves time and again to be ineffective. In fact, I can't think of any cases in which sanctions were effective. (South Africa?)
So, why is Glick proposing them?
And why does Carl think her idea is too much?
And, why does the post say, it looks as if this won't get done during a Bush Presidency?
Does anyone believe McCain or Obama will do it?
If Israel were smart, they would certainly do this during a Bush Presidency, because I don't believe either McCain or Obama would support them at all.
As is often said in business, it's sometimes wiser to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission.
Permission doesn't work on bush, apparently, and neither mccain or Obama will give forgiveness, in my opinion.
I agree with Glick. Israel should bomb Iran. Even if in the short term the costs are higher than the benefits (which I believe they will be - we can't destroy Iran's program completely), in the long term we have no choice. If you keep reading from the jump, I think I made that clear.
I missed the jump. Sorry about the misunderstanding.
Monday, September 29, 2008 1:23:00 pm
Al-Guardian reported Thursday night that in May the United States turned down an Israeli request for a 'green light' to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities (Hat Tip: Memeorandum). Israel gave serious thought this spring to launching a military strike on Iran's nuclear sites but was told by President George W Bush that he would not support it and did not expect to revise that view for the rest of his presidency, senior European diplomatic sources have told the Guardian.
The then prime minister, Ehud Olmert, used the occasion of Bush's trip to Israel for the 60th anniversary of the state's founding to raise the issue in a one-on-one meeting on May 14, the sources said. "He took it [the refusal of a US green light] as where they were at the moment, and that the US position was unlikely to change as long as Bush was in office", they added.
The sources work for a European head of government who met the Israeli leader some time after the Bush visit. Their talks were so sensitive that no note-takers attended, but the European leader subsequently divulged to his officials the highly sensitive contents of what Olmert had told him of Bush's position.
Bush's decision to refuse to offer any support for a strike on Iran appeared to be based on two factors, the sources said. One was US concern over Iran's likely retaliation, which would probably include a wave of attacks on US military and other personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as on shipping in the Persian Gulf.
The other was US anxiety that Israel would not succeed in disabling Iran's nuclear facilities in a single assault even with the use of dozens of aircraft. It could not mount a series of attacks over several days without risking full-scale war. So the benefits would not outweigh the costs. Consider the source of this story. Al-Guardian is long-known as a virulently anti-Israel newspaper. My guess is that the "European head of government who met the Israeli leader some time after the Bush visit" is Britain's own Gordon Brown, who met with Olmert in July. Brown is no Tony Blair, and while he may be cooperative on sanctions against Iran, he is less likely to be cooperative on striking Iran's nuclear facilities.
But as Caroline Glick pointed out last week, Israel may no longer have a choice as to whether to act, even if the only damage is to set Iran back a few years. Note how dispersed Iran's nuclear facilities are in the map below and read on.
[Image] Today, there is only one way to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Israel must bomb Iran's nuclear installations. Such a strike will not end Iran's nuclear program. It will not overthrow the regime. It will not cripple Iran's economy. It will not end Iran's active support for international terrorist groups.
All an Israeli air strike against Iran's nuclear facilities will do is set its nuclear program back for a couple of years. Such a strike will buy Israel and the rest of the world time. And during that time, Iran will no doubt expand its diplomatic, terror and political offensives against Israel and the US. But if Israel and the US are wise, they can use the time as well.
If Israel and the US are wise, they will use the extra time to ratchet up international economic sanctions on Iran. They will use the time to conduct covert operations against nuclear and regime targets. They will use the time to increase international pressure on countries that do business with Iran and sell it arms. And they will use the time that an Israeli military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities will buy to support Iranian democracy movements and so weaken the regime and perhaps eventually topple it.
It is clear today that the Bush administration will not take action against Iran. This week five former secretaries of state said that the US should pursue diplomatic ties with Teheran regardless of Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. There will be no will in Washington to act against Iran until after Iran has attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.
So it is up to Israel. Too bad we don't have a government in Jerusalem. I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that what Glick is proposing is Samson committing suicide and taking as many Philistines as possible with him. But I believe that she is right that even if the costs of a strike against Iran are high, and even if they outweigh the benefits in the short-term, there may no longer be any choice. As I noted yesterday, sanctions are a dead letter.
4 Comments
Close this window Jump to comment formThe so what is this.... in 1981 Reagan and Weinberger were FURIOUS with Begin for reasons of non consultation (though Begin was unquestionably right as history shows), today though, IF (and a big if) Israel is to get at Iran they have to cross Iraq, OR Jordan/KSA.
If that story is right, they are not coming across Iraq, or it's swarm of F-15's, F-16's, and F-18's
If that story is right, they won't have american KC-10's and 135's to cooperatively refuel from.
That makes the mission vastly more difficult, if the major portion is to be by air, if the Kadima gov has a pair to begin with, and of course if they did, Hizballah would be dead or crippled and Bush might have a very different outlook. Though I doubt it.
Farshtay?
Sunday, September 28, 2008 12:44:00 pm
I don't really understand this post.
Glick is proposing bombing, which is the right thing to do, in my opinion, and then in the wake of that, she is proposing sanctions.
And, Carl thinks that is going too far?
The bombing won't topple Iran, as the article clearly states, so how is it going too far.
Sanctions have proven themselves time and again to be ineffective. In fact, I can't think of any cases in which sanctions were effective. (South Africa?)
So, why is Glick proposing them?
And why does Carl think her idea is too much?
And, why does the post say, it looks as if this won't get done during a Bush Presidency?
Does anyone believe McCain or Obama will do it?
If Israel were smart, they would certainly do this during a Bush Presidency, because I don't believe either McCain or Obama would support them at all.
As is often said in business, it's sometimes wiser to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission.
Permission doesn't work on bush, apparently, and neither mccain or Obama will give forgiveness, in my opinion.
Sunday, September 28, 2008 1:01:00 pm
Pastorius,
I agree with Glick. Israel should bomb Iran. Even if in the short term the costs are higher than the benefits (which I believe they will be - we can't destroy Iran's program completely), in the long term we have no choice. If you keep reading from the jump, I think I made that clear.
Monday, September 29, 2008 10:57:00 am
Carl,
I missed the jump. Sorry about the misunderstanding.
Monday, September 29, 2008 1:23:00 pm