Will They or Won't They?

[Cosima___J]

The media lately seems to be playing down any possibility that Israel will attack Iran's nuclear facilities. But writings like this make me wonder:

Preempt Iran—At All Costs!
By Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, Israel Hayom January 31, 2012

The discussion about the cost of a pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities is valuable only if intended to advance the attack and neutralize the possible retaliation by Iran and its allies. However, such a discussion is harmful, ignores precedents, plays into Iran's hands and threatens Israel's existence, if it reflects hesitancy, skepticism and fatalism, aiming to preclude preemption, and assuming that Israel can co-exist with a nuclear-armed Iran.

On May 12, 1948, the pre-state Israeli Cabinet decided by a vote of six to four to declare independence and include Jerusalem within Israel's boundaries, despite internal opposition and pressure by the U.S. and despite a terrible price: The U.S. withheld military aid, threatened economic sanctions and surmised that the declaration of independence would result in a second Holocaust, this time at the hands of the Arabs. Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion refused to abide by the American pressure to postpone the declaration of independence by a few years, knowing that such a delay would be tragic in the long run, and that independence exacts a painful price.

On Oct. 5, 1973, the eve of the Yom Kippur War, Prime Minister Golda Meir rejected the option of a pre-emptive strike to repel the clear and present danger of a joint Egyptian-Syrian attack. She was concerned about the cost of such a strike -- namely appearing as the aggressor and severely damaging ties with the U.S. -- and preferred to be portrayed as the victim. However, the terrible, long-term cost of that war has been far greater than pre-emptive action would have been. As expected, Israel was not viewed as a victim, but rather as a country that lost the "spirit of the Six-Day War," eroding is own deterrent power, and undermining its position as a strategic asset for the U.S.

In June 1981, on the eve of the destruction of the nuclear reactor in Iraq, then Prime Minister Menachem Begin weighed the cost of a pre-emptive strike versus the cost of inaction. The heads of the Mossad and Military Intelligence, former Defense Minister Ezer Weizman, opposition leader Shimon Peres, Deputy Prime Minister Yigael Yadin, Israel's national security adviser and the Head of the Atomic Energy Commission all opposed striking Iraq. They presented apocalyptic scenarios that would result from such action: an irreparable rift with the U.S., harsh sanctions, conflict with the Soviet Union and Western Europe, reconciliation between Muslim countries and a pan-Islamic attack, threats to the peace treaty with Egypt and other doomsday events. They underestimated the probability of a successful pre-emptive attack and overestimated Iraq's military capabilities. Some claimed there was a greater chance of seeing Israeli pilots being dragged through the streets of Baghdad than being welcomed back to their bases. But, Begin decided in favor of a pre-emptive strike, determining that the cost of restraint could be far greater than that of a pre-emptive strike; that a nuclear threat would subordinate Israel both politically and militarily; that a nuclear attack could not be ruled out considering the violent, unpredictable and hateful nature of regimes in the region, and that the ratio of Israeli territory to that of surrounding Arab states (0.2%) did not allow for a Mutual Assured Destruction. Begin understood that the window of opportunity for a strike against Iraq's nuclear reactor was about to close. The destruction of the reactor drew short-term isolation, which was promptly substituted by a long-term strategic esteem and cooperation.

In 2012, after a decade of failed attempts at engagement and sanctions, and in light of the assistance (in terms of development and acquisition) Iran has received from Pakistan, North Korea, Russia and China for its nuclear program, Israel must decide between launching a pre-emptive attack to eliminate that threat or facing it. Opponents of an attack warn that it could potentially result in a harsh response from Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, and international anger directed at Israel over higher oil prices, a wave of terror and Persian Gulf turbulence. Yet, these pale in comparison to the lethal cost of a nuclear threat, which includes a withdrawal of overseas and Israeli investors from the country, a record number of Israeli emigrants and a sharp decline of Aliya (Jewish immigration), dwindling tourism, intensification of military-political-economic dependence on the U.S., a more powerful and influential Iranian regime that takes control of the Persian Gulf , and the transformation of Israel from a strategic asset to a strategic liability. Israel would wither without even one nuclear warhead needing to be launched.

A pre-emptive attack against Iran would exert non-lethal and short-term cost, but would boost Israel's long-term strategic image. It would also provide a tailwind for the opposition to the ayatollahs' regime. Will Israel embrace the legacy of Ben-Gurion and Begin, or that of their opponents?

[jbuck919]

The media lately seems to be playing down any possibility that Israel will attack Iran's nuclear facilities.

Actually I was thinking just the opposite, based on, for instance, as mundane a source as the NBC Evening News. It seems to be a serious and scary possibility. But I'm not seriously contradicting you, because it may very well be a question of what you read and hear, and it is not exactly the case that the NY Times has made it a headline (yet).

[keaggy220]

This story is getting very little coverage. I'm afraid the average American who's only information comes from the MSM is going to be very surprised one day soon.

[RebLem]

The world is supposed to end on December 22 per the Mayan calendar. I predict the Israelis will attack sometime in mid-December.

[BWV 1080]

If Israel really thought Iran posed an existential threat they would have struck already.

[John F]

Israel probably gains more by promoting the fear of such an attack than by actually attacking. Unless Iran is invaded, like Iraq, there's no stopping whatever they're determined to do within their own borders. What are the odds? Not good.

[Mark Harwood]

If Israel has to do this, it's because others have let them down.

[keaggy220]

If Israel really thought Iran posed an existential threat they would have struck already.

I don't agree. They are certainly trying other methods first- likely delaying the strike as they negotiate with other countries.

[John F]

If Israel has to do this, it's because others have let them down.

How so?

[Cosima___J]

Maybe Israel is taking seriously the threats made by Ahmadinejad to wipe that country from the face of the earth. (Recall that too many sophisticated, intelligent people in pre-WWII, did not take Hitler seriously. Look where that got us.) I can understand that the Israelis don't see the rest of the world doing anything to get rid of Iran's nuclear capabilities and that, therefore, the Israelis must act on the Jewish statement, "Never Again!" The West seems to prefer "diplomacy", but when would we reach a point where we admit that diplomacy might not deter the likes of Ahmadinejad from pursuing his oft-stated goal of crushing Israel?

[John F]

Israel has heard that threat before, constantly, ever since the founding of the state. The day after it declared its nationhood, it was invaded by Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, plus forces from Saudi Arabia under Egyptian command. Eventually the invaders had to settle for a brokered cease-fire. When Israel gets involved in a war, it doesn't lose.

And Israel may already have nuclear weapons; it refuses to say yes or no, but it has not signed the nonproliferation treaty, and most believe it does. Iran may sometimes talk crazy talk, but it hasn't put its military forces on the line since the Iraq-Iran War, which Iraq started and which lasted 8 years, costing Iran about 1 million dead and wounded. We defeated that same Iraqi military, twice, each time in a matter of weeks. Israel's defense forces are less numerous but far more formidable and better armed than Iraq's, even without nuclear weapons. With nuclear weapons, going to war against Israel would very likely be suicide.

As for preemptive or preventive war, read this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

It concludes: “Israel is finally confronting the sort of choices the United States and Great Britain confronted more than six decades ago,” says Gideon Rose, the editor of Foreign Affairs. “Hopefully it, too, will come to recognize that absolute security is impossible to achieve in the nuclear age, and that if its enemies’ nuclear programs cannot be delayed or disrupted, deterrence is less disastrous than preventive war.”

[Mark Harwood]

If Israel has to do this, it's because others have let them down.

How so?

The Arab League tolerates Hamas's policy of ambiguity, Iran's stated homicidal intentions & its build-up of nuclear tech, to appease Wahhabi sentiments. It also insists on UN Resolutions that refer to the pre-1967 boundaries, making real negotiations impossible. The wide world has watched the Palestinian people shoved around the Middle East, unwelcome at Arab hearths as long as they can be used to put pressure on Israel. Turkey's anti-Semitic stance is played down in the interests of EU expansion, which itself will serve EU Governmental workers & their friends in business rather than European or probably even Turkish people.
Human Rights Watch has reported Arab-Israeli conflicts in a biased way, as though Israel were the aggressor.
The Left-wing media in Britain, such as the Guardian newspaper, portrays Israel as the bad guy.
Condoleeza Rice almost got the protagonists around a table, but had her plug pulled. Winning peace by peace is repeatedly made impossible by the interests of outsiders.
I see spineless Western Governments, addicted to oil, allowing Israel to be threatened by spiteful bodies with a Medieval agenda. Of course, the US supports Israel's economy, in its own interests, but unless things are afoot of which we know nothing, Israel's campaign of sabotage in Iran may have to escalate.

[jbuck919]

If Israel has to do this, it's because others have let them down.

How so?

The Arab League tolerates Hamas's policy of ambiguity, Iran's stated homicidal intentions & its build-up of nuclear tech, to appease Wahhabi sentiments. It also insists on UN Resolutions that refer to the pre-1967 boundaries, making real negotiations impossible. The wide world has watched the Palestinian people shoved around the Middle East, unwelcome at Arab hearths as long as they can be used to put pressure on Israel. Turkey's anti-Semitic stance is played down in the interests of EU expansion, which itself will serve EU Governmental workers & their friends in business rather than European or probably even Turkish people.
Human Rights Watch has reported Arab-Israeli conflicts in a biased way, as though Israel were the aggressor.
The Left-wing media in Britain, such as the Guardian newspaper, portrays Israel as the bad guy.
Condoleeza Rice almost got the protagonists around a table, but had her plug pulled. Winning peace by peace is repeatedly made impossible by the interests of outsiders.
I see spineless Western Governments, addicted to oil, allowing Israel to be threatened by spiteful bodies with a Medieval agenda. Of course, the US supports Israel's economy, in its own interests, but unless things are afoot of which we know nothing, Israel's campaign of sabotage in Iran may have to escalate.

Israel has implacable enemies among many Arab and other Muslim countries, and yes, their behavior often ranges from craven to despicable, with a kernel of legitimate concern sometimes in there somewhere, but that is not the world "letting [Israel] down." I assumed you meant the Euro-American world, and in fact with some exceptions that part of the world is pressing sanctions which (A) appear to be having the desired effect and (B) are probably the best hope for dealing with the situation at present without plunging into disaster.

Cosima also wrote this:

I can understand that the Israelis don't see the rest of the world doing anything to get rid of Iran's nuclear capabilities....

If the Israelis don't see what I just mentioned as doing something about Iran's nuclear capabilities, then they are blind, and I can't believe that. The question is not whether the part of the world that is not beyond hope to begin with in this regard is doing what it can, but whether that part of the world, including and especially the United States, should continue to stand by Israel if they take lone military action that adversely affects us. I realize that this is a moot question, since US politics makes support of Israel all but absolute, but I am sorry we are not able to frame the issue in those terms, for if we could, we might have a great deal more leverage.

[BWV 1080]

Israel has heard that threat before, constantly, ever since the founding of the state. The day after it declared its nationhood, it was invaded by Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, plus forces from Saudi Arabia under Egyptian command. Eventually the invaders had to settle for a brokered cease-fire. When Israel gets involved in a war, it doesn't lose.

And Israel may already have nuclear weapons; it refuses to say yes or no, but it has not signed the nonproliferation treaty, and most believe it does. Iran may sometimes talk crazy talk, but it hasn't put its military forces on the line since the Iraq-Iran War, which Iraq started and which lasted 8 years, costing Iran about 1 million dead and wounded. We defeated that same Iraqi military, twice, each time in a matter of weeks. Israel's defense forces are less numerous but far more formidable and better armed than Iraq's, even without nuclear weapons. With nuclear weapons, going to war against Israel would very likely be suicide.

As for preemptive or preventive war, read this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

It concludes: “Israel is finally confronting the sort of choices the United States and Great Britain confronted more than six decades ago,” says Gideon Rose, the editor of Foreign Affairs. “Hopefully it, too, will come to recognize that absolute security is impossible to achieve in the nuclear age, and that if its enemies’ nuclear programs cannot be delayed or disrupted, deterrence is less disastrous than preventive war.”

Yep, what will be the unintended consequences of invading and conquering Iran, which ultimately is the only sure way (in the short term at least) to guarantee that the country will not get a nuclear weapon?

[BWV 1080]

I would also propose a permanent ban on the "we need to stop the next Hitler" argument

[jbuck919]

I would also propose a permanent ban on the "we need to stop the next Hitler" argument

We can save that for the domestic political scene.

[Mark Harwood]

I would also propose a permanent ban on the "we need to stop the next Hitler" argument

Why's that? Many of us see this as resistance to a Fascist creed, so isn't it relevant, if simplistic?

[John F]

I assumed you meant the Euro-American world, and in fact with some exceptions that part of the world is pressing sanctions which (A) appear to be having the desired effect and (B) are probably the best hope for dealing with the situation at present without plunging into disaster.

Same here, and you saved me the trouble of stating the obvious. To speak of the Arab world as "letting Israel down" is very strange, as Israel has never relied on its neighbors for anything that they are now withdrawing, or has it?

[keaggy220]

I would also propose a permanent ban on the "we need to stop the next Hitler" argument

Certainly an overused tactic, but a permanent ban is a little too, well, permanent... I'm afraid we're going to be like the boy who cried wolf. One day a politician will point and scream Hitler and no one will listen and that's going to be the time the wolf has flesh, blood and fangs...