U.S. - Israel Attack On Iran: What Outcome Possibilities?
By Allen
J Duffis
Published: May 11, 2008
|
Article
tools |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
"So? What's your point?" Response by Vice President Dick Cheney in a recent televised interview, when asked about the 4000 plus American service men and women who were killed in combat in Iraq. It Should Not Happen...But It May 
I have long held the opinion that the Bush administration will make a military strike upon Iran before they leave the White House. That feeling has grown not only within my own consciousness, but in the trusted viewpoints of many knowledgeable and experienced individuals of the world scene - including the Iranians. For a nervous Israel, watching the Iranians increase their nuclear capability, the window of opportunity is closing rapidly. At present they have in the palm of their hands a lame duck president who desperately wants to leave a positive legacy of some kind. Also, they are astute enough to realize that it is highly unlikely an incoming U.S.president, Democratic or Republican, will have the desire or backing to assist in another risky Mideast venture between two ongoing wars. And where else could the Neocons and the Israelis find such an Oval Office ally with a ruthless and callous disregard for human life, as they have in Vice President Dick Cheney? Just how this will be done is open to speculation, but the corridor of possibilities is very narrow, as is the possibilities for world-wide consequences great. Options for an effective attack to knock out all or a significant portion of Iran's advanced nuclear facilities are limited and, from different perspectives, - the Israelis and the Iranians know this. On the other hand, the Iranian capability to inflict significant 'next door' damage to our 'sitting duck' forces in Iraq is nothing to take lightly. What concerns most observers of the perilous brew taking place, however, is what comes along in the wake of such an attack on Iran? And, most of all, what comes at the end of the lull of a quick victory? In the end, it may come down to winning the battle and losing the war - again. Why Suspicions of an Attack on Iran? Strong indications of something significant is about to take place in the region have been exposed in recent news stories, and when strung together the revelations paint a disturbing picture. March 12, 2008 - The USS Carl Vinson is headed towards the Middle-East. This will be the first time since February 2004 that US will have three major carrier groups stationed on and around Middle East. The move was announced by the Pentagon as a formidable strike force, in readiness, for operations against Iran and Syria who are in defiance on issues of Lebanon and Nuclear weapons development. 
March 22, 2008 - Army Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, has been chosen to become chief of U.S. Central Command. March 22 2008 - Vice President Dick Cheney visits Israel. Supposedly, the US vice president was to focus in Israel on "ways forward in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and Israel's right to defend itself against terrorism and protect its citizenry," said spokeswoman Lea Anne McBride. April 8, 2008 - A day before Israel implements a "routine" emergency drill, Israeli Infrastructure Minister Benjamin Ben Eliezer warned against an attack by Iran, which he said is unlikely to happen. Ben Eliezer stressed, however, that the nationwide emergency drill "is not aimed at threatening any of the countries surrounding us." But he offered a bleak scenario for Israel in the face of a future war. "I predict that in the opening strike, hundreds of rockets will land in Israel," Ben Eliezer said. "There will not be a place in the country out of the range of the missiles and rockets of Syria and Hezbollah." The real possibilities of a war with Iran, initiated by the U.S. in conjunction with Israel, are best expressed by the following recent publication from a reliable source: A pre-election attack on Iran remains a possibility February 05, 2008 By Leon Hadar 
Leon T. Hadar is a research fellow at the Cato Institute, specializing in foreign policy, international trade, the Middle East, and South and East Asia. "President Bush still believes the Iranians are developing nuclear weapons – and so do the Israelis. So for journalists to assume that neither the U.S. nor Israel will attack Iran before the November election could constitute another failure of imagination." Cato’s Leon Hadar suggests questions the press should ask the presidential candidates about what they think the American response should be to various scenarios in the region – including a Gulf-of-Tonkin-like alleged provocation." Influential Op Ed columnist David Ignatius also had written on this looming possibility of a war with Iran, before the Bush administration vacates the Oval Office. In a May 8, 2005 editorial in the Washington Post he made the following remark: "Behind closed doors, we are praying that the Iranians will make a mistake so that you will have a reason to attack." (Click here to read the entire editorial) Therefore, in the light of what we know about the man, what do you think Vice President Cheney's response would be. if questioned about the possible loss of several thousand more American lives in such a pursuit? I think most of you with clear, nonpartisan minds already know. "So? What's your point?" What Might America Gain From Such an Attack? If the coming scenario holds, it becomes quite clear the Bush administration, after managing to shoot its way into the biggest military fiasco of this country's history, now feels it can shoot its way out - by shooting us into another boondoggle of equal or possibly greater proportions. One point should be made crystal clear at this juncture of discussion. If we attack Iran, or we in any way assist Israel in an attack, we will be officially at war with Iran. So any planning of such a venture should take into serious consideration, from the very onset, that the Iranians have strong diplomatic and trade allies in the world. And although they may not come to their immediate aid in a shooting war - there are other steps they can take afterward that will, for some considerable time afterward, make it very difficult and costly for America. In the gain column, an attack on Iran would interrupt the flow of weapons to the insurgents in Iraq; note, I said interrupt, not completely stop. Although I must admit, I have never fully understood this ploy as a morally justifiable option. We have in numerous instances in the past supplied weapons to insurgents in other countries. Let's face it, we are engaged in a war with a country on the border with Iran and - we are the invaders. So why shouldn't they supply that country's citizens (the insurgents) with weapons, employing the same reasoning we did for doing the same with the Cuban rebels and the Bay of Pigs invasion? Secondly, it would slow down the Iranian nuclear program considerably; note again, I said slow down, not completely stop. That's it! What Are the Risks? 
In the loss column, however, the repercussive political and economic debris of such a mindless Middle East adventure is considerably higher. Iran is the world's fourth largest producer of oil, and is OPEC's second largest producer after Saudi Arabia. Therefore, at this point in the industrialized world's 'oil starved' history, the inevitable a shutoff of that nation's oil in the wake of an attack will have worldwide economic repercussions. Our actions can possibly achieve what the Arab states have not been able to achieve among themselves, unity. Their leaders may not want it, but their large populations may demand it as retribution for such an attack. Already the Venezuelans under the leadership of Hugo Chavez has hinted of the pursuit of nuclear weaponry. Such a massive attack - once again - on a sovereign nation that did not attack us, could fuel such ambitions in other countries with the resources to pursue them. 
Finally, it should be remembered by all war hawks that the Russian government is an Iran backer, and is heavily involved in the Iranian nuclear program. Not only did they construct two of the main reactors that would be a prime target in any bombing raid, but at present there are hundreds of Russian technicians on the ground in Iran, heavily involved in reactor construction and maintenance training. And being it highly unlikely the Israelis or Americans will risk losing the critical key to success of an air assault (the element of surprise), more than likely many Russian personnel will be casualties of the attack. Therefore, one must keep in mind that the Cold War between the U.S. and Russia is making a slow comeback, and the Russian state is still recovering from their humiliating ouster by former client, Egypt, and their military's embarrassing defeat in Afghanistan. Since these setbacks in the region, the Russians have been determined to establish a new footprint Middle East. Toward this end they have been assisting the Iranians in the construction of Russian designed nuclear power plants, and have made it patently clear they don't intend to be embarrassed in the region again. Obviously, in planning an air attack on Iran, serious consideration must be given to just how severely prestige sensitive Russians might react to so many deaths of their countrymen in a client state. The Other Side of Armageddon Planning "If Iran should attack Israel with nuclear weapons, we will obliterate them!" Remark by Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton 
When making such sweeping statements of intent, one is forced into the situation of dealing with the double edged sword immediately given birth to by the words. And in the Middle East this critical point becomes crucial due to the volatile nature of the area, and we are immediately faced with the shadow question such a statement creates: If Israel, for whatever reasons, should attack Iran with nuclear weapons, will we obliterate them? In a reverse scenario, however, should the Israelis go after Iran's deeply entrenched underground nuclear facilities, they would have to employ 'bunker busting' bombs. But many experts in such matters regard these bombs, by themselves, as not adequate to the mission. The only sure-fire alternative they suggest is for the Israelis to employ 'low yield nuclear - bunker buster bombs' as the only realistic option. 
No matter how one should phrase it, this would mean that nuclear weapons had been used in the Middle East, and the option would then be open for any of the region powers to do the same. In essence, the game will have changed - forever. If we as a nation seriously intend to leave that first statement on the diplomatic clothesline, then we better damn well have an answer for the second possibility. For far too long we have dealt with the Middle East factions with two faces; one toward Israel as an undeclared ally, and the other toward the rest of the region as 'oil necessary' potential enemies. We pressure the Arab states and others to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 1968, intended to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Only four countries refused to sign: India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel. Since that time, we have continually berated all of those countries for not signing the treaty, and actually going ahead and producing nuclear weapons - except Israel. When it comes to Israel's intransigent defiance on this as well as other matters we appear to, as the expression goes, turn a blind eye to their transgressions. Clearly, any sane inspection of this diplomatically untenable regional approach, masquerading as foreign policy, will immediately ascertain that the status can not be allowed continue. The stakes are now too high. On the Loose: Israel - The Paranoid Lone Warrior 
In the drive to declare the Middle East as a 'Nuclear Free Zone', American foreign policy would appear to desire this state be achieved without any pressure on Israel to comply. But is Israel not, geographically, an integral part of this area of the world, located right smack in the middle of that region? And being fact, it makes no sense diplomatically or otherwise to allow them to have a nuclear deterrent, while demanding the Arab states not do the same. The Bush administration has already compromised our neutrality (preserved and protected by every president since Truman), by openly committing to defending Israel. To then give them free reign to do whatever they want in the region militarily, knowing their penchant for brash and daring exercises of power, is suicidal for America's long term interests in the region. Why should any Arab leader or state be willing to negotiate with us for any reason, no matter how logical, under such a one-sided foreign policy? Like it or not, the Israelis have to come to the understanding that, sooner rather than later, one of their Arab nation neighbors - will acquire nuclear weaponry. It's a given. 
How many Syrian type nuclear facilities (built with North Korean assistance) can they detect and destroy before one manages to come on line? What happens if the Arabs buy working rights in a foreign reactor, or simply build one in a small neutral country to achieve their aims - like North Korea? It can be done! Besides which, the 'Islamic Bomb' has already arrived in Pakistan. And with the price of oil spiking ever higher, relatively soon, an oil rich state can simply buy a nuclear weapon on the black market. It can be done! If they truly want peace, they must come to the realization that it cannot be totally on their terms, there will be a rebirth of Palestine on their borders, and there will be a few other bitter pills to swallow. First of all, they will never be allowed to keep all of Jerusalem - that important city must become the capital of both Israel and Palestine - at peace. 
Secondly, they must be willing to share, equally, the Golan Heights with Syria. And third, like it or not, they must be willing to admit to their Arab neighbors, face to face, the fact that in 1948 they 'stole' the land they are on. That the world colluded to let them take it as a guilt concession for the 6 million Jews who were put to death during World War ll, or that they had it 2000 years ago will be of no consideration in the final compromise. Other than the proposed option, their only alternative is to accept destruction at the hands of their Arab neighbors - sometime before the end of this century. In any case, the economic umbrella afforded by the United States is being rapidly depleted by its own needs. Israel simply cannot live with so much of its GDP going to an ever increasing defense structure, or for that matter with an accelerating Arab population evolving within their borders. Time is running out for the Israelis. What Can We as Citizens Do? - Absolutely Nothing! Unfortunately, at this present politically precarious moment in time, as our economically and war battered country is caught up in a contentious run up to a presidential election, there is very little the average American can do to stop this coming war with Iran. On the other hand, as the inheritors of a 'lame duck' presidency, the Bush administration is relatively free to do just about anything - with particular reference to starting a third Middle East conflict. My greatest fear is centered upon the planning phase of such a war. The Bush administration has continually demonstrated a remarkable determination (employing a - stay the course mentality) to plan such ventures totally in their own minds, rather than to a tactically required degree in the minds of their adversaries. Such deficit strategy of planning leaves us wide open to the maximum potentiality of the surprise factor. What are the Iranians planning? What will can or will they do in response to the attack? We speak hopefully of the resident youth element of Iran, who do not hold the hatred of their seniors toward America. But speak not of their reaction to the deaths of their mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and other assorted relatives in an American-Israeli air war. May I offer a clue: how did the political and generational adversarial factions within the United States react to 9-11? We are now engaged in fighting and bleeding, both economically and militarily, on two distant war fronts: America does not need, nor can she tolerate or afford, a third.
|
