Zev Chafets writes in the new Jewish World Review:
In an interview in an Israeli newspaper this week, Giora Eiland, Israel’s national security adviser, made a startling statement: November will be the “point of no return” for taking out the Iranian nuclear program.
“Point of no return” is a phrase with a history. In 1981, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin demanded to know when Saddam Hussein’s nuclear plant at Osirak, Iraq, would reach it. Military intelligence then, as always, was muddy. Some of Begin’s advisers counseled patience. Others warned that delay could be fatal. The most influential advocate of the go-for-it approach was Begin’s minister of defense – Ariel Sharon.
Who is going to stop him this time? Probably not John Kerry, if elected. Further down in the article, Chafets recounts a conversation between key Kerry foreign policy adviser Richard Holbroke and Bill O’Reilly:
“It is rather significant that the United States is now selling Israel over $300 million worth of bunker-busting bombs. They don’t need those for the Palestinians,” Richard Holbrooke told Bill O’Reilly on Sept. 23. O’Reilly was visibly surprised by the clear implication of this observation. Holbrooke is, after all, the leading Democratic spokesman on foreign affairs, John Kerry’s presumptive secretary of state.
O’Reilly: “But wouldn’t that be a disaster, to have the Israelis do it?”
Holbrooke: “I’m not advocating this.”
O’Reilly: “Right.”
Holbrooke: “[But] let’s realize where we are. In 1981, the Israelis attacked the Iraqi nuclear plant at Osirak. President [Ronald] Reagan personally criticized Israel. Today, we all recognize that Israel was 100% right to do it.”
Never mind the obvious questions about which planet O’Reilly is on (is that why the spin zone “stops here”?), it’s clear, as Chafets points out: This may be America’s last remaining point of 100% bipartisan foreign policy agreement: Israel was right to smash the Iraqi reactor 23 years ago, and it should be equipped for a similar job in Iran.
Well, it apparently has been equipped – or is about to be – and guess who’s “irked”? Meanwhile, back at the Debka ranch, we learn this morning “Iran is now able to launch a missile with 2,000-km range capable of hitting Israel and southern Europe. This was announced Tuesday by former Iranian president Rafsanjani, second highest authority in Tehran regime after hard line ruler Khamenei.”
October surprise? November surprise? Either way it should come as no surprise.
MEANWHILE: The Mullahs’ Greatest Enemy warns us not to play defense.
Roger,
Thanks for the link. Y’know, I can only take so much O’Reilly in a given week (about 15 minutes) so I never would have heard about this interesting exchange. I have to say, given a choice between Powell and Holbrooke at Foggy Bottom I lean heavily toward the latter. There’s a hard-headed Machiavellian streak in the guy that’s appealing to a cynical girl like me (wink, wink). And if the Israelis do the necessary, I’ll back them all the way.
Here’s my problem: I’m made more than a tad queasy by this back-door approval of an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear program. There’s Kerry, on the stump, criticizing our policy in the Middle East and Iran, which must, logically, be an attack on Bush’s close ties with Sharon’s govt. Let’s finish connecting the dots: a President Kerry would NOT give Sharon such close support, and (what do we think?) would not sell the bunker busters to him, so as not to tick off the Palestinian lovers in Europe and his own party. BUT, through the man who MAY speak for his inner core (should it ever be found) we get the idea that he secretly supports Israel all the way on this one. Or rather, that is the impression the campaign wishes to convey to Fox/O’Reilly watchers (i.e. NOT the Dem base, but more than a few swingsters).
You gotta hand it to the Dems here, this is cynical but smart (I didn’t think they had it in them, frankly). Use the “rightist” mouthpiece itself to speak to a hostile/undecided block of the voting populace in a way that seems sympathetic, while saying a completely different thing to the MSM.
As the venerable turnip master Robert Byrd said recently, “Do they think we just fell off the truck?”
I go back and forth on whether it would be best for us or Israel to take out Iran’s nuclear capabilities. It’s pretty clear to me that a Kerry/Holbrooke team would leave it up to the Israelis (not surprisingly, since Kerry has also offered the Iranians the nuclear fuel they need).
To heck with “what the Dems/Whoever would say…”
I would be entirely pleased were Israel to preempt the Iranian programs, but it’s not at all clear that dropping a few bombs is a viable option this time around. The targets are widely spread, well defended, and situated under hospitals, universities, etc.
I would much rather the Mossad cut to the chase– target the mullahs who are pushing these programs. Yeah, I mean *kill* them. Sorry.
If Israel really were going to do this within the next 60 days, why on earth would its spokesmen be releasing this information to the world? I don’t believe they talked about it before bombing the Osirak reactor.
I can imagine Israel taking a lot of international heat for this bombing from the world (more serious than the heat it gets for defending itself from Palestinian Arab terrorism). I also see a bombing like this one hurting the re-election campaign of President Bush, as skeptics conclude that he is empowering a sort of cowboy recklessness in Israel.
Something else has to be going on here. I don’t know what. Maybe it’s intended to tell the fence-sitters in the incipient Iranian revolution that this is the time to get on board.
I agree with Ledeen’s prescription that we should go faster – in Iraq. But I do not agree that our target should be Iran as yet. My belief is that we need to prepare the way before striking. I.E., I believe that if we go in the many Iranians that would like to be free may be stirred by patriotsm and decide to fight against the invasion. In that case, Iraq needs to be a settled issue. By way of preparation, we could send in agent provocateurs to get the country boiling. It would be a good thing if we could get the people to rise up against their government and then step in with logistics and help. In Iraq, we stepped in with the logistics and support and then had to drum up an uprising against the terrorists by training the police and the army. It’s backwards.
“I believe that if we go in the many Iranians that would like to be free may be stirred by patriotsm and decide to fight against the invasion.”
I think that is correct. Almost all Iranians support the nuclear program ( http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/20753/story.htm )so if the US attacks the country for that reason it may well backfire and strengthen the Mullahs.
The mess in Iraq, the lack of WMDs and no connection between Saddam and 9/11 all guarantee world hostility to any US claims regarding Iran’s WMD program and it’s very real connections to Al Qaeda. The US has lost a lot of credibility internationally because of Iraq. That lack of international support might have an impact on the decision the next administration makes regarding Iran. So it might be up to Israel.
I hope the Israelis do take out the Iranian reactor. It would be the best thing, even though Kerry himself wouldn’t like it. After all, it would never pass the “global test” for approval.
Let there be no mistake here: regardless of what the US would do or has done or would have done, the prevailing opinion of the world would still be against Israel on this. This has nothing to do with Bush’s action in Iraq.
However, a Bush administration would be supportive of Israel, as it has been. Sharon has remarked:
“I would like to thank you, Mr. President, for the friendship and cooperation. And as far as I remember, as we look back towards many years now, I think that we never had such relations with any President of the United States as we have with you, and we never had such cooperation in everything as we have with the current administration. I would like to thank you for that, and we are looking forward for better future for all of us.”
In 1981 the Israelis could go ahead with their attack on the Iraqi nuclear reactor because they had a friend in the White House in Reagan. Yes, Reagan nominally criticized the action, but everyone knew that was a friendly wink and a nod towards the Israelis. In fact, Reagan was criticized for giving de facto support to the Israeli action. In fact, many Democrats criticized harshly the Isreali action and the Reagan reaction, which they saw as way too supportive of Israel.
This issue is the Kerry killer. See my Elephant in the Debate post:
http://tomgrey.motime.com/1096922089#350805
I’ve updated my probability for Iran to have nukes in the next 4 years:
under Kerry, 50%. Under Bush, 10%.
I hope Bush wins in Nov, and agrees to issue an ultimatum to Iran after he wins. After Iran refuses to give up its nuke program and accept verifiable inspections, the troops in Iraq should follow Israel’s bombing run and institute regime change in Iran. And put in some 10 year moratorium or other limited time before Iran can begin nuclear research, again. (Perhaps after fair, free, open elections have chosen a third president? )
The window is getting narrow.
I don’t see how we could have done much about Iran with Saddam in power next door.
Ledeen is right about the backing of the terrorists against us in Iraq. But that would have happened wherever we went. I repeat. Wherever we went. And if we hadn’t taken down Saddam, many of those fighting us in Iraq would be fighting us in Afghanistan.
Or Iran. Or Syria.
The absolute ideal would have been to invade everyone at once. Hah! That would solve the problem of border crossings!
Facetiousness aside, the dynamics have proven to be different from what we expected. We adjust. I still sense the political aspect of using kid gloves in Iraq, but I think/hope that is changing. If the rumors I hear of zarqawi types joining the Iragi army to foil us all, our switch to more forceful tactics sooner rather than later is most imperative.
As the clock ticks down to Iranian nukes. Yes, I agree with Ledeen. Faster please.
I’ll stay mute on how we deal with Iran itself since I simply don’t know what’s best. I have no idea how great the forces of mullah resistance actually are. Sometimes I think it’s more show than substance. Other times not. I leave that to others to discern.
But I will say this. I think it’s terribly unfair to Israel to force/expect its hand to be played on Iran. Like Israel is the scapegoat. Everyone hates them anyway so why not push Israel to do it. There’s something about that that smells to me.
The 1981 Israeli strike against the Iraqi reactor is a great case for the value of just preemptive action, as well as a reminder that such action usually is not very popular in world opinion.
Now everyone recognizes the value of this preemptive strike, yet at the time it was almost universally condemned by the world community; it never would have met Kerry’s “global test.”
Israel’s bunker buster bombs could be a valuable deterrent to keep Iran’s Mullahs from using their shiny new long range missiles on Israel. I wish I had one for the next time a Democrat keys my car.
Kidding! I’m just kidding. I kid because I love.
Just kidding.
One might give some thought to the utility of the Israeli bunker busters being used efficiently in the Bekaa valley rather than in Iran. Syria has been asked to withdraw from Lebanon but has not, as yet, complied. Israel’s ability to project sufficent force via air strikes in Iran is problematical. The US and Jordan would both have to feign blindness to a multiple strike operation originating from Israel. The dispersion of the appropriate target set in Iran makes it much more likely that the project will be undertaken by US air forces rather than by the Israelis. We still have time to plan and mount a truly devastating air war against Iran should one be deemed necessary.
If the degree of unrest in Iran is so high, why haven’t there been targeted assasinations of important mullahs? Burning shops and offices makes for nice video footage but its a very low risk enterprise. I’ll believe that the Iranians are serious about rebellion when they start laying down their lives while taking the mullahs lives. Until then, the huddled Iranian masses yearning to be free are just talkers looking for us to spill American blood for a cause in which they are unwilling to spill their own.
I much prefer the Serbian solution of a moderate air campaign of indefinite duration that rips Iranian infrastructure apart to an extent that would require twenty years to repair. Begin with the nuclear sites but continue until the market for candles equals the market for bread.
Pat Curley,
It may not be confusing. Don’t you think our sale of 5K bunker obliterating bombs to Israel now, sends a very clear signal to all interested parties? That is, No matter who wins on Nov., the Iranian reactors and enrichment facilities, plus other related sites, are toast.
This may be America’s last remaining point of 100% bipartisan foreign policy agreement: Israel was right to smash the Iraqi reactor 23 years ago, and it should be equipped for a similar job in Iran.
I don’t agree with this at all. If it’s the position of the US government that the Iranian reactor should be attacked, it should be the job of the US military to do it. Why should Israel be expected to further marginalize itself to do the US’ dirty work?
Is any other country expected (a phrase that comes up a lot when talking about Israel) to carry out a role like that? My hope is that Israel gets the Arrow working and in place, and let the rest of the world worry about an Iranian nuke.
“I don’t agree with this at all. If it’s the position of the US government that the Iranian reactor should be attacked, it should be the job of the US military to do it. Why should Israel be expected to further marginalize itself to do the US’ dirty work?”
Iranian nukes are even more of a threat to Israel than they are to us. Therefore, they’d be doing their own dirty work as well as ours.
As for American forces, I’d been assuming that Bush might move to take care of the situation after the election. If we don’t even have that long, I can’t help but start thinking that we’re screwed.
Roger,
Here’s a comment I made at TCP’s OP-ED Section (minus a few typos) re the “Global Test.” I think they’re appropriate for this discussion.
My two bits. John Loftus (FOXNEWS contributor) said Saturday, the Mullahs will have nuclear capability within as little as four months. Run a google search on him and check him out for yourself.
If the Mad Mullahs of Iran become a nuclear threat before the election, Israel will take them out. This time it will probably require some special forces on the ground because of the hardening of the targets. Also the Iranians learned from the previous Iraq strike to disperse their production facilities. The U.S. will issue the usual “tisk tisk.” After the election it will be up to the U.S. whether President Bush is relected or not.
I truly believe the blogosphere can play an important role in this very deadly game now afoot. Unlike the MSM we can report these stories from the Iranian people that are not being heard here. Blessed be for the Net and the Blogosphere! Here
As I have said many times before our “Old European Allies” have their own self-interests at heart. Here
See the piece running in today’s Moscow Times on France’s involvement in the UN Oil for Food Shadedown as well as two similar pieces in HSPIG’s forums section. Here!
*****
OP-ED comment at The Command-Post (www.command-post.org)
Global test my foot!!!
The L.A.M.E. (Liberal American Media Establishment) has failed in its jounalistic responsibility to objectively inform the American people on a number of stories. Rathergate is just the tip of the iceberg.
With whom will Sen. Kerry seek counsel?
The UN is nothing more than a sham nowadays. They can pass resolution after resolution until the cows come home. The genocide in Sudan is still taking place by the Islamofascists who pay no heed to these missives.
As President Bush said if the world body is to have any credibility it has to back up its resolutions. Need I mention how corrupt the UN is? The UN Oil for Food Program was as corrupt as they come and Saddam was making a mint off it. How can one seek the wise counsel of this body, which is a shell of its former self?
The A. Q. Kahn black-market of nuclear technology was operating and undetected right under the noses of the UN and the IAEA. This spread nuclear enrichment technology to North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and perhaps Saudi Arabia. Here
France can stick their noble/moral righteousness where the sun doesn’t shine. France was up to its eyeballs with lucrative oil contracts from Saddam. They were also on the receiving end of the spoils from the UN Oil for Food Program. Unfortunately little of this went to the Iraqi people which is further disgusting.
Rumsfield was right when he made the distinction between the Old Europe and the New Europe of the breakaway republics of the former Soviet Union. They understand the meaning of living under a repressive regime.
And further it was the US with its vast economic resources that restored and protected the Old Europe from the advance of communism. We extended a protective shield around them.
And this is the thanks we get? Here
They’re living in the past.
We shouldn’t waste our time with them and asked them for counsel on anything.
The next strategic move in the Middle East is for the US to recognize the struggle of the Iranian people to rid themselves of the ruling Islamofascist theocracy. They are on the verge of having nuclear capability that poses grave strategic consequences for the region.
See Jonah Goldberg’s(NRO editor-at-large) latest article, “Iran at the Tipping Point!” Here
Also here is something all of us from the Blogosphere can do from the safety of our keyboards. Here
Ron Wright, Moderator
HSPIG Forums Site
http://www.hspig.org
Hypothetically,Israel taking out the Iranian nuclear capability does pass the “global test”.The Iranian regime has promised to destroy Israel as soon as it acquires deliverable nuclear weapons,when they do, that by any test is imminent.
However,no doubt Israel will be regarded as the exception to the rule.
Isn’t this “global test” a bit like Kerry asking Teresa if he can have a free hand with the interns?
This isn’t quite as simple as the discussion here makes it out to be.
We aren’t talking about one single reactor, but at least 12 critical sites (and about another 10-15 important, but less essential ones) that would have to be taken out, most of which are hardened and well-protected. As an additional kicker, there are significant population concentrations nearby, so anything less than an absolutely perfect strike will result in substantail civilian casualties.
Taking nothing away from the professionalism of the IAF, Osirak was a success largely because of the (strategic) surprise factor, something that simply isn’t going to happen here. The moolahs aren’t stupid, and they will no doubt have at least some forces in place for protection that are likely to do better than the Iraqis did over 20 years ago.
While the US and the Israelis both have the means to destroy these facilities, the political costs (as well as the human and material ones) are likely to be prohibitive. None of this suggests that it shouldn’t be done (in fact I think that it is a necessity), but lets not fool ourselves into thinking that it doesn’t involve some very serious costs.
I’m with Scott on this one. I think the IDF’s taking out the reactors is fraught with difficulty-in addition, the cost in civilian casualties and infrastructure damage would be significant. It seems to me that there is a significant component of Persian nationalism; it was mentioned in conjunction with Iraq but never materialized; I think it is much more significant factor in Iran. I still believe the best course of action is covert operations and covert support of anti-Mullah factions coupled with threats of air support to protect them when and if an Iranian opposition movement actually takes up arms. Just my .02.
Scott,
You assume that we won’t help the Israelis. Many things become possible given the nominally covert assistance of the USAF, and Israeli use of air bases in Iraq.
Consider what local fueling stops, plus full assitance from AWACS, JSTARS and other American recon/ELINT/EW assets could do for Israeli airstrikes over a period of several days when collateral damage is not a concern.
Forget “the reactor” (bushehr). It is a little piece of the game and is not necessary in order to make nukes when you have another reactor (apparently under construction, probably underground) and you are enriching uranium.
The very fact that bushehr is obvious and above ground means the Iranians consider it likely to be hit. They’d be idiots not to.
As others have pointed out, nuclear facilities are scattered, with population centers nearby. Major attacks might delay their nuclearization, but only a regime change and inspection with cooperation would be sufficient.
And lets not forget the sterling performance of our own and allied intelligence agencies about Iraq. What are they missing regarding Iran? A complete enrichment facility hiding inside a mine somewhere? Purchased or already completed weapons stored in an ordinary high security weapons dump. Iranian agents in the US with GM smallpox or other WMDs?
Furthermore, many if not all of the Iranians who want our help in a revolution strongly believe that Iran should have nuclear weapons.
We’d be fools to take that bargain.
I’d rather see Iran reduced to rubble (as suggested above) than a deal where we allow a newly democratic Iran to have nuclear weapons.
For Israel this is a matter of life and death.
For the U.S. less so.
The American people are split 50/50 over the war in Iraq, nevermind launching *another* pre-emptive strike, this time against Iran.
It follows that this is a job for Israel.
Israel has no choice. When your life is at stake you don’t worry about whether you can finish your enemy off or only disable him. You act.
Mr. Moore,
The pending Israeli attack on Iran is intended to delay Iranian production of nuclear weapons for a few months – maybe six months – not to stop the program.
It’s just to buy time for the US to ramp up an invasion AND foster US domestic political support for the invasion. IMO this has all been well coordinated with the Bush administration.
Such a goal is probablyl achievable with conventional weapons provided the US gives Israel the major & not very covert support I described up topic.
I think the attack is 2-3 weeks away. And it won’t consist of just one strike.