I just don't see how Israel could physically do it as long as the Americans are in Iraq. Hitting Iran is a tough mission to begin with for Israeli aircraft. It would probably be impossible for Israeli aircraft to hit Iran without passing through Iraqi airspace -- and they could not do that without the Americans knowing and being able to stop them. Thus the U.S. government would be seen by Iraqis and others as an accomplice of the Israeli attack. The fallout of such a bombing would make life in Iraq very difficult for more than 130,000 U.S. troops, even before the Iranians embarked upon a course of retaliation that probably would include stepping up roadside bombings of U.S. forces.
Thomas E. Ricks
Yes.
An attack on Iran might be risky in dozens of ways, but it would certainly do wonders for restoring Israel's capacity for game-changing military action. The idea that Iran can meaningfully retaliate against Israel through conventional means is more myth than fact. Even without using nuclear weapons, Israel has the capacity to flatten the Iranian economy by bombing a few strategic oil refineries, making a meaningful Iranian counterstroke much less likely than it first appears.
...any Israeli air raid on Iran is likely to succeed in destroying masses of delicate equipment that the Iranians have spent a decade building at enormous cost in time and treasure. It is hard to believe that Iran could quickly or easily replace what it lost. Whether it resulted in delaying Iran's march toward a nuclear bomb by two years, five years, or somewhere in between, the most important result of an Israeli bombing raid would be to puncture the myth of inevitability that has come to surround the Iranian nuclear project and that has fueled Iran's rise as a regional hegemon.
The idea of a mass public outcry against Israel in the Muslim world is probably also a fiction—given the public backing of the Gulf states and Egypt for Israel's wars against Hezbollah and Hamas..
...Bombing Iran's nuclear facilities is the surest way for Israel to restore the image of strength and unpredictability that made it valuable to the United States after 1967 while also eliminating Iran as a viable partner for America's favor...
...the idea that the price of an attack on Iran will be the establishment of a Palestinian state makes the logic of such an attack even clearer. Israel's leaders know that the security threats inherent in giving up most of the West Bank will be greatly augmented or diminished depending on how a Palestinian state is born. A Palestinian state born as the result of Israeli weakness is a much greater danger to Israel than a state born out of Israeli strength...The inevitability of a future Palestinian state is the most powerful argument for the inevitability of an Israeli attack on Iran—unless the Iranian nuclear program is stopped by other means. Taking out the Iranian nuclear program is the one obvious avenue by which Israel can turn the debilitating drip-drip-drip of territorial giveaways and international condemnation into a convincing appearance of strength...
David Samuels
4 comments:
Is this a clear cut issue---to bomb or not to bomb. Or is there another possibility to talk. Those are the three options. I have to come down on the side of attacking those facilities in Iran that are most vital to the Iranians in their race to develope a bomb. Simpy put, Israel cannot allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. They don't have to put the missle in the nosecone of a missle, all they have to do is smuggle the bomb into Israel and explode it and point the finger at others. The myth of having to marry the bomb to a missle is just that. Once the bomb is built Israeli will have to head for their shelters and stay there. I hope Bibi understands this and I believe he does.
Unfortunately, Iran's nuclear complex is widespread, well hidden and well protected. Israel could possibly muster a conventional strike force that could set back Iran's nuclear program for a period, but it could cripple it or even seriously damage it. IMIO, any strike against Iran would almost certainly have to be unconventional and that makes the probability of an attack remote because it makes the global repercussions of an attack unimaginable.
And i hope you understand the consequences of Israel attacking Iran.
Does Samuels seriously believe that the world will applaud Israel's "strength"? (Haha, military attack is rather a sign of weakness and not strength.) It will only make the opinion of Israel as war monger and satanic state stronger, in my view.
And to summarize the reasons for attacking Iran:
1. To show off Israel's military strength (flex some muscles)
2. To destroy Iran's economy and make the Iranians life miserable
3. To be able to settle with Palestinians on the terms more favorable to Israel.
I can't believe you see those as legitimate reasons to start a war.
I dont know what info do you all have here but one thing i can tell you and i am sure in this:
YOU KNOW VERY LITTLE ABOUT ISRAEL'S MILITARY POWER MANY THINGS HERE ARE VERY SECRET AND UNKNOWN TO THE WORLD
so you are not in a position to know what can happen if israel attack or how israel is going to attack!
Post a Comment