Ignatius, in his column on Panetta’s big worry, writes that “President Obama and Panetta are said to have cautioned the Israelis that the United States opposes an attack, believing it would derail an increasingly successful international economic sanctions program and other non-military efforts to stop Iran from crossing the [nuclear] threshold.” And if sanctions are helpful, but not sufficient, then what? It can’t be reassuring to Israelis to read, in the same Ignatius column on Panetta, that administration officials do insist that “if Israel’s population centers were hit, the United States would feel obliged to come to Israel’s defense.” If Israel’s population centers were hit… ? That would be more than a tad too late.
The reality is that sanctions are hurting the Iran regime, which is all to the good — but years of sanctions haven’t brought it down, and they are not stopping its nuclear program. And while U.S. and European Union sanctions on Iran are becoming ever more extensive, Iran keeps finding ways to adapt. On balance, this is costing Iran, but it it is not costing Iran’s regime enough. Iran’s oil provides a lot of people with a lot of incentives to help violate sanctions, or at least look the other way. Meantime, Panetta himself just told CBS’s 60 Minutes that Iran, if it wants to make a nuclear bomb, is probably one year away from doing it. To be sure, Panetta added that it could take Tehran another year or two to fit a warhead on a delivery vehicle. But there’s not a lot of safety margin in these probabilities, especially if you consider that Iran has business pals, such as North Korea, helpfully working on the logistics of such projects.
If the U.S. administration wants to stop Israel from attacking Iran, the way to do it is not to block the Israelis, but to preempt them — with American strikes. Former CIA chief James Woolsey is urging that the U.S. begin military preparations for strikes specifically targeting Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the IRGC, which he says is “at the heart of this regime,” running the Basij militia, “the nuclear, space and ballistic missiles program, as well as the Quds Force.” Now there’s an idea; and if Panetta’s biggest worry is how to persuade Israel to stand down, U.S. strikes on the IRGC would be much more effective than giving interviews to the Washington Post.
It may be wishful thinking on my part, but I see an ol good cop/ bad cop routine:”I can’t control my partner” This method may produce more panic than the sanctions. The “sanctions working” might be code for everything working including covert action. Obama might think that the regime may choose inspectors if it means survival; hide and seek=play for time, but it would be a big (if temporary) political victory for Obama.
What he said, Panetta said deliberately. I don’t see Israel complaining about this characterization. I think its Obama’s price for supporting the ultimate strike if Iran makes no concessions
flying squirrelwrote: “It may be wishful thinking on my part, but I see an ol good cop/ bad cop routine:”I can’t control my partner”…” .
I join you in wishing that was true, but I doubt it.
If the US was seriously interested in intimidating Iran then I doubt that SecDef Panetta would recently have indicated publically that even the most modern and powerful US conventional munitions cannot penetrate some hardened Iranian facilities (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203363504577187420287098692.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_News_BlogsModule). IMHO, if this is true it was scandalous to brief the Iranians on this weakness in our capabilities. If false, it’s another step in the efforts of the Obama and Bush (since 2005) administrations and significant parts of the national security establishment to throw cold water on the possibility of our dealing with Iran.
I do think the good cop bad cop routine is part of the strategy. I do not know how closely that is coordinated or scripted.
I do think that when Israel says we may attack it is not a bluff. Israel does not bluff and cannot afford that.
Iranian regime takes another tack. They threaten everything on a regular basis. Including the ridiculous threat against US carriers. That is pure bluff.
Iran missed the era when nations such as India, Pakistan, and Israel, could develop nuclear weapons capability on the sly and then present as a fait accompli. Now they are trying this in full view. Technology has advanced since then.
Israel must have an operation plan ready to go. How effective and what consequences are very difficult to predict.
My view is that Iran has made a fool bet. They should have made nice, built a credible conventional force, leveraged the economic gains and left Israel and US out of public statements.
Nukes are not the end of warfare. Israel, Pakistan, US, Russia, China, any nuclear power all really compete at the conventional level even with non nuclear powers. That needs economy and a stable polity.
Iran is in a repeating loop. Ideology is trumping reality there now.
I have known and worked with Iranian people here in midwest US for many years. All I have worked with are smart competant people with the same goals in doing our job. Last thing I want is some sort of nightmare war.
If I could tweet Iranian people it would be “please do not make Israel do this.”.
If you think the Iranian people have any say in what their gov’t does, I refer you back to the Summer of ’09.
In that case, the Iranian people have a choice. Overthrow the government and die by the tens of thousands, or wait until the Nazi mullahs start a nuclear war, and then die by the tens of MILLIONS.
Panetta’s other problem is that there is nothing standing in the way of an Israeli air strike, except the U.S. Jordan would not and the Iraqi’s have no air force. Oh, yeah, right, Saudi Arabia. It most certainly is not in the Saudi’s interest to interfere with an Israeli attempt to take out the Saudi’s most important enemy in the Middle East. So, that leaves U.S. aircraft in Kuwait, Bahrain, and on carriers in the Persian Gulf as Iran’s first line of defense. O.K., so now what do you do Mr. President?
The answer is obvious when the ‘president’ in question went to islamic school in Indonesia and has done everything in his power to foment the advance of radical islam in Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt and Libya
go take zbig brzezinski’s advice on the matter and [try to] shoot the Israeli planes out of the air.
Obama and Panetta have already taken BZ’s advice by doing the next best thing: compromising the mission (shooting it down) before it went airborn.
Click my name for my short article on the subject.
I have to believe that this is personal on the part of Obama. It’s no secret that he despises Netanyahu and is still smarting from being lectured by the PM on the true story of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. So the self-described “True Friend of Isreal” has ratted our closest ally out and threw them under the bus.
We all know how much Obama dislikes Netanyahu. In contrast, at the last G-20 meeting the *only* leader to receive Obama’s bear-hug embrace was Turkey’s Erdogan. That tells me all I need to know about Obama’s sentiments.
one creep hugs another
“…only the U.S. would have the ability to stop the bomb-making.”
Nobody’s seriously talking about stopping the bomb-making, just delaying it.
Try this thought experiment: How long would the CIA give the United States of 1940 to invent and deploy a nuclear bomb? Consider that it wasn’t even certain that such a bomb was possible. Would the CIA have anticipated operational bombs within five years?
Answer: The CIA would still be analyzing the question while they listened to the surrender ceremonies aboard the USS Missouri over the Mutual Broadcasting System.
We’re talking the same CIA whose first indication of a faltering Soviet Union was footage of the Berlin Wall demolition on the 6 O’Clock News, right? And the predecessor agencies certainly missed the Soviets’ setting off Joe-1 in 1949.
If Israel’s population centers are hit, there will be no America to come to Israel’s defense.
Israel’s retaliation would include Russia and by then a radical Socialist France, both of which would take their vengeance out by nuking America.
The bottom line is that if Israel is nuked, this rapidly escalates into a global nuclear war.
If this world is ready to accept a second Holocaust, this world does not deserve to survive.
Let us pray God Who Is Infinite Love.
Israel can make the best out of an inevitable situation here.
AN ISraeli action, if successful, would:
Show up Obama as inept and vacillating, and spell his doom come Nov.
Thanks to Obama’s need to distance the US from ISrael prior to this action, it would break the strings of perceived and real vassalage of Israel towards the USA – Israel would finally be a ‘free’ and independent country, that the arab world would have to deal with directly, rather than through American coercions, that only poison the US/Israeli relationship.
The US would have to deal with Israel if not quite as an equal, at least as a valued ally whose worries and capabilities must be respected.
A tremendous, if risky, geopolitical opportunity for Israel to come into its own.
But to the extent that she may be forced, by American weakness, to go it alone, it is worth considering the upside.
Money talks. As long as Israel is tethered by foreign aid, it will still be a vassal – in whole or in part.
It’s long past time for Israel to give up the 3B it gets annually form the US. It is financially insignificant to the now pretty large Israeli economy, and its current function seems to be an umbilical cord of sorts, that allows the US to exercise some leverage, and the Israelis to feel they have a sponsor in a dangerous world.
I think it has outlived its usefulness, especially with the likes of Obama in charge.
A tertiary issue is that it gives fuel to Israel haters in the US, who constantly whine about the 3 billion, as if it has not been returned a hundred fold in increased US productivity and American lives saved . . . .
Once the natural gas starts flowing from Tamar & Leviathan, the aid will stop completely. It will more than compensate for the lost aid.
pass on the $3 billion, but it’s an indirect subsidy for american military arms makers
There is not enough time to analyze every boneheaded comment, policy decision and nation-destroying (the nation being the United States) move these clowns make. I would imagine Panetta’s reasons for talking this way are the same as all the other talk that has preceded him from within this administration:
1) it suits their purposes for the moment 2) they feel like it 3) they would love to see Israel destroyed 4) they have never acted in America’s bests interests and aren’t going to start now
Within three days after this gang began to rulethey were making anti-USA decisions and implementing extra-Constitutional strategies, business-destroying regulations and Control-Oriented EO’s so fast there wasn’t time to breathe in between. Most empoloyed and above-100-IQ citizens began realizing very quickly that there was absolutely no time to absorb, understand and respond to one firebomb before another one came soaring over the fruited plain. Nothing has changed since. And it’s all ok with Congress. (We know that because they’re not stopping him.)
A truly excellent synthesis.
The lack of resistance by Congress can be partially explained by the simple fact that the politicians are too rotten to even imagine that any other politician cannot be bribed and compelled to play the “game”. When they look at a totalitarian they are not capable of seeing it.
Even the tone of the GOP campaign is “politics as usual”, there is no call to save the Republic, no appeal to the honest Democrats to abandon the ship of the subversives.
Even now that this administration of internationalist subversives is risking a nuclear holocaust our politicians think in terms of “politics as usual”.
In the meantime, DNI Clapper told the Senate Intelligence Committee he doesn’t know whether Iran wants to build nuclear weapons.
“They are certainly moving on that path, but we don’t believe they’ve actually made the decision to go ahead with a nuclear weapon,” he told the committee.
Clapper is an idiot.
wait–you mean the Muslim Brotherhood is NOT a “largely secular organization”? but Clapper seemed so sure…
Israel can’t handle a coordinated three front-front war with widespread resistance internally,so only we could stop Iran.Too bad our government just ceded control of Afghanistan,Iraq,Egypt,Libya, and a dozen other countries to allies of Iran.Don’t think Valerie Jarrett cares much about stopping Iran.
Hmm – care to stake a few hundred bucks on Israel’s supposed inability to strike Iran?
I’d be happy to do so, and I’m not a betting woman.
If Iran hit Israel’s civilian centers with a nuclear bomb…the Obama administration would feel obliged to do something.
Well, if THAT isn’t friendship, I don’t know what is.
Up until the massive death toll and near extinction of our only ally in the Middle East, our “obligations”? Eh…not so much.
But, in order to “assist” our ally, we have decided to not only TELL Iran about an imminent attack, but to give them the likely time period, so that they can adequately go about preparing and defending against it.
Oh…some of you may see this as somewhat…um…inconsistent…with feeling “obliged” to act after your Jewish friends have been pushed to near extinction…yet again. But, silly you.
Oh, sure…Obama has never once visited the country during his entire Presidency. And yes, he did leave Bibi to dine alone and had Clinton and Biden dress him down for the temerity of…building in one of his own cities.
But, the real safety and security of knowing that AFTER civilian centers have been hit by nuclear warheads, Obama will feel OBLIGED to keep “Hymietown” donors happy with the Democratic Party…should make us all feel relieved.
Sending a drone after Ahmadinejad should do the trick. Since that’s the extent of our foreign policy anyway. And, that should make everything equal again. Six million jews, one hitler. Six million more, one mullah.
Fair trade, no?
The small c communists don’t very much like America or Israel, I’m obliged to tell you. They are red to the bone. And Leon “Redbone” Panetta is doing their dirty work. But it’s the world that’s up on the tightwire.
6 million (WWII), 6 million (Israel), 6 million (US?)
666, those that believe know what comes next.
I wonder if the Kurds would allow the Israelis to refuel at Sulimaniha or Erbil after the strike on Iran? Sure would be in their interests.
don’t know about the Kurds, but I’ll tell you who will help for sure: the Saudis. there was talk awhile ago of the Saudis letting Israel overfly them on the way to Iran. the sheiks are terrified of the crazy Iranians and would fully, but quietly, support Israel all the way, as would those other little rich oil states.
Israel can make the best out of an inevitable situation here.
AN ISraeli action, if successful, would:
Show up Obama as inept and vacillating, and spell his doom come Nov.
Thanks to Obama’s need to distance the US from ISrael prior to this action, it would break the strings of perceived and real vassalage of Israel towards the USA – Israel would finally be a ‘free’ and independent country, that the arab world would have to deal with directly, rather than through American coercions, that only poison the US/Israeli relationship.
The US would have to deal with Israel if not quite as an equal, at least as a valued ally whose worries and capabilities must be respected.
A tremendous, if risky, geopolitical opportunity for Israel to come into its own.
But to the extent that she may be forced, by American weakness, to go it alone, it is worth considering the upside.
We, of course, should not stand in the way of an Israeli strike. We should, of course, also not refer to it as ‘defensive’.
How would you refer to it??? After Iranian sociopath called for it’s destruction on a number of times, how do you refer to such event???
In the Six Day War, Israel struck first, to destroy the Egyptian Air Force on the ground before it could attack Israeli targets. Even then, some “progressives” over here argued that Israel was the aggressor, in spite of the Egyptian military and propaganda buildup preceding the war. (Ramsey Clark, to name only one.)
In 1973, Israel didn’t strike first, Egypt did, and Israel came very close to losing the Yom Kippur War. And once again, even though Israel didn’t strike first that time, they were blamed for “increasing tensions”- by progressives in America and Europe.
This time around, the first strike is likely to be the last one needed, if they wait for Iran to make the first move. Nuclear weapons are like that. Israel’s present position is similar to that of the United States during the Cuban Missile Crisis, except that the “we’re both sane men” principle fails badly when the nuclear button is controlled by theocratic fanatics acting on an eschatolgical worldview.
About the only thing that can sensibly be said would be to send a message to the surviving Iranian leadership, quoting Warren Oates’ best line in the movie “Blue Thunder”;
“When you’re walkin’ on eggs, don’t hop.”
clear ether
eon
I don’t think one can compare Iran and Egypt: Iran has no dog in this hunt with Israel. They don’t share a border or outlet to the Arabian Sea and are not in any sense staring each other in the face.
Egypt has long felt a general sense of sometimes brotherly sometimes military ownership over the former British Mandate. At various times in it’s history Egypt has exerted direct rule and at the least considers it their legitimate sphere of influence historically. Egypt has been a country far longer than the “upstarts” of Syria, Jordan, Israel, etc. and one can take this into account as well. In short, they feel slighted at being taken out of this picture in a (to them) humiliating manner.
Hard to envision Iran setting off nukes in Israel where the trade winds would waft nuclear fall-out directly back to them. Even a dirty bomb delivered by proxies such as Hizbollah risks nuclear retaliation by Israel. The question is what Iran has to gain from the destruction of Israel and the answer is not a damn thing. Arguing that the Iranian regime is crazy and therefore doesn’t care is not persuasive; they are not immune to the same considerations as all regimes: power, money and influence – why risk all that for essentially no reason?
Germany and Japan did not knowingly commit suicide in WW II: they thought they could win enough in the beginning to make them too much of a woodtick to root out or to make a negotiated peace that would allow them to keep what they had. Even at the end Japan and Germany maneuvered to make life miserable enough (Battle of the Bulge, Kamikazes) for the Allies that both could avoid unconditional surrender and at least maintain the regimes and sovereignty.
Three hundred Mexicans, a few million Jews, this administration is fairly casual about human life. Israel had best fend for itself. Help is most assuredly not on the way.
“The reality is that sanctions are hurting the Iran regime, which is all to the good — but years of sanctions haven’t brought it down, and they are not stopping its nuclear program.”
Sanctions never work. There are just too many ways for a country to get around them. Look at Saddam Hussein and his “Oil-for-food” Program. And let’s not even talk about North Korea. They’ve had sanctions for years and their regime is still there. No, sanctions put a strain on the average person, but not on the regime controlling the country. The only way to really change things in Iran is through regime change. And if what Panetta says is true and the Israelis are going to attack this spring, then we don’t have much time to try to pull down that government. It still could be done, but it will be hard. Support every rebel group in Iran with weapons, money, and covert training (through Kurdistan) and you may have a shot at it. All you have to do is get the people in the streets like you did in 2009 (a really wasted opportunity). If you can do that and arm the people at the same time, the mullahs and the Revolutionary Guard will be toast. But time really is running out.
The problem of Iran is more complex than bomb or no bomb.
The shia /sunni split has resulted in counterpoised islamic campaigns or militancies: khomienist and wahabist.
Decimate one you help the other. (What would the Saudis be worring about if they didn’t have to worry about Iran?)
The Saudi’s might invade a disabled Iran. A strike w/o a US invasion (Israel is not going to invade) could result in such a scenario.
Playing the sunnis and shia off each other is a established cia tactic: Iran Iraq war. This is obviated by a strike.
Historically the Jews have had better relations with the Persians than Arabs. Iran is an older, wiser civilization, and long range, a better candidate for a US ally in the region than the Arab states. The Islamic revolution in Iran is far weaker than the ascening MB.
Bombing should be a last option, if in fact a covert op could flip control back to nationalist Persians from the madhist mullahs without making it a weak target for Arab, MB or al qaida expansionism.
The Saudis don’t have to worry as long as they have oil; after that they’re on their own. Unluckily for Iran their oil will have long since run out by the time that happens and “imperial” ambitions turned into a long sleep-time nap back to pre-oil days. Nighty night Islam.
Panetta is despicable. His utterances probably will not affect Israeli thinking in any way.
Yes Panetta…a stool in the ointment.
Oops….Yes… Panetta is a tool and a fool. Sad to say.
You had it right the first time.
“(Note: Qaddafi survived for years under sanctions. What persuaded him to give up his nuclear program was fear of suffering the fate of Saddam Hussein. What finally brought him down was use of force.”
Yes, remember this to note to a Liberal, who intones, “violence has never settled anything.” It truly is the only thing Muslim nations respect.
(I’ m sorry, was that terribly Waaaacccisssttt of me?)
KICK ASS , ISRAEL !!….KICK ASS ….THOSE ANTI SEMITES DESERVE EVERYTHING YOU DO TO ‘EM !!!!!!
When it comes to diplomacy, Occam’s razor applies. The most obvious answer is usually the correct one. Panetta spoke out because the US administration wanted to disrupt Israeli pre-emptive action. While American and Israeli interests often have coincided, in this case they don’t. America’s current administration believes that America can get by with the gamble of Israel being hit by a nuclear explosion, just like Britain’s leaders calculated Britain would make out ok with Czechoslovakia being handed to Hitler.
#15 Flying squirrel understands this situation better than anyone posting including this article.
Saudi Arabia has been masterful in the ME, we invade Iraq when it was Saudi’s that attacked NY on 9/11…Saudi Arabia funds global terrorism on a massive scale through its network of Wahhabi schools while US presidents walk hand in hand and bow to Saudi Kings. The foundation of our economic system is predicated on Petro Dollar, based on Saudi Petroluem trade accounts.
The situation in Iran is playing right into Saudi hands, with unaware masses ignorantly doing the House of Saud dirty work. When people read about the US in the future, they will wonder how we could have forged alliances with Saudi Arabia and turned a blind eye to what was truly happening in the ME.
Here’s my take on Panetta’s game:
Option A) Iran takes Panetta’s words as fair warning and bows to international pressure and sanctions and allows inspectors back in.
Option B) Iran doesn’t take the threat seriously and continues nuke development, situation remains status-quo, but because of Panetta’s words, Israel forbears to strike Iran.
Option C) Israel strikes Iran anyway, but the Administration uses Panetta’s words to try and create ‘plausible deniability and hopefully duck Iranian retaliation should the sh-t hit the fan.
Note two additional indicators:
1) Panetta’s reference to Iran striking Israeli population centers and the US having no choice but to intervene on Israel’s behalf can be seen as a veiled warning in both directions simultaneously – to Israel and to Iran.
2) Panetta’s reference a few days ago to the weaknesses in the penetrating bombs just sold to Israel can be seen as a blunt-force move to try and discourage Israel publicly against striking Iran.
These two indicators would tend to underscore that Panetta’s crafty moves were as much against Israel as they were against Iran. His words in the interview with Ignatius (re: Israel’s timeline for attack) could alone be interpreted as pressure on Iran in cooperation with Israel. The other two indicators would tend to belie that more benign interpretation.
Btw – even if Panetta were throwing Israel and it’s strategic advantage under the bus, it is quite possible that Israel was told of his plans to do so and it was exacted as a blackmail/price in exchange for the US (ie. Obama administration) agreeing not to condemn Israel outright.
The only other option is to conclude that Panetta is a bumbling fool. Stranger things have been known to exist. But even a bumbling fool can fancy themself a latter-day Kissinger on the FP front. This latter conlclusion would be borne out by the reports that the administration is royally p-ssed off at Panetta for his words. He may be a latter-day (but more stupid) Kissinger – acting as the lead character in his own spy film.
All of the above notwithstanding, the conclusion on the part of the Israelis wil be the same – trust these people (the Obama administration and all of its lackeys and functionaries) half as far as they can be thrown. Plan alone, and act alone.
My personal conclusion to the above analysis is that historically Israel has always been safer when surrounded by clear enemies than when it has been surrounded and lulled into complacency by (apparent) friends.
To clarify the last point: “Israel has always been safer when surrounded by clear enemies than when it has been surrounded and lulled into complacency by (apparent) friends”.
This is one of the times when the enemies of Israel are clear (and I am not speaking of Iran here – Iran’s intentions are always clear) – but rather of the current administration.
Israel is always better off when it knows who it is dealing with and on whom it can depend – i.e, only itself and the one above.
Excellent on all counts.
A risk, but also an sea-change opportunity here for Israel.
official word from the WH to the press pool is that they were “disappointed and surprised” by Panetta’s comments. is old Leon going rogue? what’s up with all these announcements. you know that stuff’s usually secret, right?
or is this yet another layer of spin to get Israel and Iran to do–what?
if this was a movie, it’d be fascinating. but it’s the potential annihilation of 6 million Jews (“that number again!” as Krauthammer put it) so we can’t really enjoy the suspense.
you’d think the “Israel is a cancer that must be cut out” comment from Khameini would have gotten Obama’s attention today. apparently not. I mean, it’s not as bad as wanting to build apartments in your capital city or anything.
Miriam,
To your points, looking back, it people may give leaders too much credit for clever calculation. We now know that the Israeli leadership in 1973 had enough warning to preempt the Egyptian and Syrian attack, but chose not to because they were afraid of international reaction if they pre-empted again. So they let the attack happen first, it was worse than they expected and David Elazar, the Chief of Staff was made the fall guy, but eventually Dayan and Meir had to resign as well.
Same with Panetta, his comments to an Israeli-Jewish crowd a several weeks ago that Israel should stop avoiding negotiations just days after the Palestinian leaders refused to talk made him appear clueless. Some pundits speculated that he had become so used to open expressions of hostility towards Netanyahu among the Obama people that he didn’t think of restraining his feelings to an Israeli-Jewish crowd.
I take Iran at its word when it says it wants to destroy both the Great Satan (US) and the Little Satan (Israel.) There’s no reason not to. They haven’t been subtle about their plans to usher in a new Caliphate by creating a global nuclear war to greet the return of the 12th Imam. I know a lot of people think Iran can’t possibly mean it, that they must be playing foreign policy games. If Occam’s razor is correct, then Iran really does mean it.
I think Flying Squirrel’s history is a little off since it doesn’t take into account the nature of the current Iranian regime. No, the Iranian people don’t like it, he’s right about that. But they really have no say in government today.
I think Emma is spot on about the current US government and Panetta’s actions. It fits all the facts.
Lots of interesting strategizing going on in these comments but I think that the American leadership is just clueless. It’s been amateur hour from the start. Obama is incredibly ignorant and doesn’t appear to have learned anything on he job. Hilary is the worst SoS ever. No accomplishment, no understanding of strength, weakness, Model UN high school students could do better than these idiots. They have made the world incalculably more dangerous.
Claudia Rosett’s comment,
“Let’s hope that Panetta had some brilliant hidden agenda in talking like this to the press; perhaps a secret plan for imminent American air strikes that would render an Israeli attack unnecessary, or cover for an Israeli plan to attack tonight. But more likely Panetta simply meant what he said, and he meant to say it.”
It’s very sensible to think that he meant what he said. We outsiders can’t know these things and can only speculate unless we were in the room when these background discussions were (are) held, or our tiny microphones in the light fixtures overhead were turned on and working.
Panetta has been an inside fixture (..and fixer…) in Washington for a long, long time.
Elsewhere I’ve read belittling comments about his remarks…..that’s very short-sighted and just plain ignorant. We can’t know anything until we see physical results. Until then, everthing is simply conjecture.
One thing I’ve never understood is the repeated worry about the hardened underground facilities being impervious to bunker-buster bombs. Why is it necessary to reach those secure areas? Hit the entrances with bunker-busters, they are closed and tunnels collapsed. Everything deep within may be safe, but buried and inaccessible.
If they dig it out, do it again.
This should not be regarded as being against any Israeli attack. I hope they do and succeed.
I am still having trouble believing this country elected Obama once, to say nothing of the fact that his defeat this year is not assured. That large numbers, if not the majority, of American Jews will still vote for him is mind boggling to this gentile.
It is clear that Israel needs to act in her own best interests without relying on the government of the US. It is not at all clear what those actions should be.
I’m still curious why anything thinks that an attack on Iran would be limited to the nuclear facilities. For one, we’re not talking about Operations like Orchard (Syria, 2007) or Opera (Osirak, Iraq, 1981) with limited, comparatively undefended targets. It’s going to take more than a few extra F-15 fuel tanks to ensure the elimination of the threat.
More importantly, even if the nuclear sites were thoroughly destroyed, the long-term threat would be unabated. In fact, given the inevitable blowback, both directly from Iran and indirectly via proxy forces in Gaza and Lebanon (to say nothing of bien pensant world condemnation of “Israeli aggression”), it is difficult to see how anything short of regime change in Iran provides any real security. Is that something that Israel can accomplish by itself, or even with passive support from regional enemies-of-my-enemy such as Saudi Arabia? Not without a nuclear first strike, and I can’t believe that even Bibi will go there.
Then again, there’s more than one way to skin a Persian cat. Iran only has one refinery, and a careless cigarette could put Iran back on donkey carts for the duration. Deep assets and special forces could wreak havoc on Iranian infrastructure. The Green movement may be broken, but domestic discontent could be fanned and fueled. Lord knows the Kurds could be wound up and sent to stir the pot.
The real issue would be how to manage the action-reaction sequence so that Israel doesn’t have to fight on three fronts simultaneously. They would still need to deal with Gaza, Hizb’allah, and Syria (and perhaps Egypt, Jordan, Turkey…) militarily, but if Israel can limit at least a couple fronts to defensive/holding engagements, they may be able to accomplish enough in the primary theaters to buy time and strategic advantage to deal with the others on better terms. In the end, it would still require the US to take the bulk of the load neutralizing Iran and the Straits of Hormuz as well as to resupply Israel on a massive level, but there is a way it could be done. Of course, that presupposes that Obama would countenance backing Israel in a hot war against half of the Middle East, and that’s the most dubious assumption of all.
That still brings me back to my basic point, though. Does anyone really think that even a committed USA could surgically eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat without triggering a far broader active conflict with Iran? If American can’t do it, why would anyone expect rational Israelis to follow such a doomed path?
“Does anyone really think that even a committed USA could surgically eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat without triggering a far broader active conflict with Iran?”
Frankly, no. Which makes me wonder why we’re dancing around this issue. Whether we attack Iran or Israel does, we will effectively be blamed for it anyways. Therefore, the more sensible plan would be we both jointly attack their nuclear program.
What kinda odds are we getting that Iran tests its nuke in Raleigh during the DEM convention?
More likely Tampa during the GOP convention.
Even the mullahs, or Imadimbulb, aren’t dumb enough to whack the “leaders” they’re counting on to surrender to them.
clear ether
eon
Dd “I think the American leadership is just clueless…”
I’d put my money on some combination of calculation and foolishness on Panetta’s part. To say that he did not know what he was doing completely with his various comments would be extreme in one direction – to say that he was a latter-day Kissinger operating with multiple chess moves in his mind simultaneously would also be extreme, but in the other direction.
Again – a combination of calculation and stupidity.
And here’s one more possibility:
The Israelis do not have a specific window; but rather it was invented by Panetta to put pressure on the Iranians to back off before the current six-month delay in putting the tough European sanctions into effect expires. The current US admin does not want to deal with the possible effect of these sanctions on the price of oil.
In other words, his ‘leak’ was not a leak at all, but rather his own sabre rattling regarding a time-frame of his invention and the US’s convenience.
See this excellent analysis for more of the above:
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=106652
Your….”latter-day Kissinger operating with multiple chess moves in his mind simultaneously would also be extreme, but in the other direction.
Again – a combination of calculation and stupidity.”
…..should get a Pulitzer for just plain, outre’, silliness.
What is silly is commenters who issue blanket criticism without explaining why. Are you among those who believe Panetta to be endlessly calculating? Endlessly clueless? Simply venal? Some combination of both? Take a moment, sir, and explain your point of view, rather than just calling playground names at those with whom (for some not-yet-stated reason) you disagree.
What a disgusting bunch of schmucks, Panetta in the first rank–but they’res lots of competition for that first rank.
You underestimate Leon Panetta at your risk. He’s a long-time Washington Insider, running rings around whomever he chooses.
With respect to Israel and the Iranian nuclear threat, relying on an old saying will be more productive than relying upon the Obama administration. The old saying?
God helps those who help themselves.
Its funny how those most far removed from the events in dispute seem to have the most radical views. Ms. Rosett calls for the US to preemptively strike Iran, war-mongering, plain and simple. This is beginning to feel like Iraq 2003 all over again. I’m really dismayed to say this, but we didn’t achieve much in Afghanistan, achieved less still in Iraq (certainly no conclusive “victory” thanks to Obama) and now we should go to war in Iran? That is simply crazy.
And for those who wish for an Israel attack on Iran as a way to defeat Obama, all I can say is that is just craven.
if this terrible situation were compared to a game, like dodgeball, and we were choosing up sides, honesty would cause one to admit that our present crew of political misfits would be the last ones waiting to be picked, every time.
lucky us. maybe naxt year will bring better players on board. we can only hope and pray for change. oh, now i get it!
Ms Claudia Rossett is pursuing a wishful thinking illusion ( ” the USA should not block Israel from attacking the IRAN NUCLEARS INSTALLATIONS but rather preempt the israel move by neutralizing the iranian nuclears installations ). Actually Panetta last utterance ( the US bunker busters are not able to destroy the iran facilities ) demonstrates That 1°)the USA will not take any part against IRAN.2°) That iran can keep on running its nuclear program undisturbed 3°)That if israel attacks Iran it should consider as a NORMAL CONSEQUENCE to be hit back at its population centers.
After such a cynical statement a lucid observer must draw the true conclusions:A) Obama’s govt. has totally abandonned Israel B) Obama’s govt.has enacted a strategy of forging a totally different policy in he Mideast: A yalta style agreement where the USA protect the Saudis-Gulf emirates and the Iranians keeps their shiites crescent (Iraq-Syria-lebanon). The goodwill gesture of the USA is the abandon of Israel.This is the typical Zbig.Brezinski thinking; of course the sacrifice of Israel and the appeasement of Iran will backfire later , but the USA will have reached a kind of ” realist ” power-sharing , stabilizing situation.C) Cornered with such a treason Israel might either go alone and try to stop-if only temporarily the nuclear run of Teheran or wait, hope and pray for a republican administration to undo the Yalta style treacherous act.