From: Joel Schalit <managingeditor at tikkun.org> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Defusing the nuclear Middle East Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 09:51:31 -0700 To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
Dig completely - this is about as likely to happen as Ehud Olmert converting to Islam.
The single best piece of strategic forecasting about likely scenarios, wherein there is a military attempt to take out Iran's nuclear facilities was penned by Stephen Zunes in Foreign Policy in Focus on April 28. Check out mid-way through the piece Zune's analysis of who will carry out the attacks, and why. Zunes, in my view, correctly points out that the Israelis may very well be the first to do so, instead of the Americans, though he very interestingly notes the gap between potential Israeli policy and Israel public support for such an action - big difference:
<http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3251>http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3251
Here's the relevant section for those without the time to click thru and read the whole thing:
Israel as Proxy
Though direct U.S. military action against Iran is still very possible, it is more likely that the United States will encourage Israel to take military action instead. In such a scenario, the U.S. officials believe that the United States would gain the perceived benefits of a military strike against Iran while limiting the damage to the United States by focusing the world's wrath on Israel. Fox News reported that Bush administration officials effectively told the Israelis that "we are doing the heavy lifting in Iraq and Afghanistan Š and that Israel needs to handle this themselves."
Israel has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to violate international legal norms and-with U.S. veto power blocking the UN Security Council from imposing sanctions, and the United States providing vast sums of unconditional military and economic assistance to their government-its ability to get away with doing so. The Israeli government is convinced that the U.S. occupation of Iraq has radicalized the Iranian clerical leadership and that Iran, unlike Iraq in the final years of Saddam Hussein, poses a risk to Israel's national security interests. However, for reasons mentioned above, Israeli leaders have been reported to believe that the United States will not move militarily against Iran and that they will end up using their own forces instead.
An Israeli strike is not inevitable, however. Public opinion polls show that a majority of Israelis oppose the idea of an Israeli strike against Iran. Policy analyst Steve Clemons was quoted in the Washington Monthly as saying, "I have witnessed far more worries about Iranian President Ahmadinejad's anti-Holocaust and anti-Israel rhetoric in the U.S. than I did in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem Š Nearly everyone I spoke to in Israel who ranged in political sympathies from the Likud right to Maretz left thought that Š Israel thought it wrong-headed and too impulsive to be engaged in saber-rattling with Iran at this stage." He added, "Israeli national security bureaucrats-diplomats and generals-have far greater confidence that there are numerous potential solutions to the growing Iran crisis short of bombing them in an invasive, hot attack."
There is no indication that Iran would ever contemplate a first strike against Israel or any other country. Iran, like other Islamic governments in the region, has used Israel's repression of the Palestinians for propaganda purposes, but has rarely done anything to actually help the Palestinians. It is inconceivable that the Iranians would ever consider launching a nuclear attack on Israel-which possesses at least 300 nuclear weapons and sophisticated missiles and other delivery system that could totally destroy Iran-for the sake of the Palestinians, many thousands of whom would die as well. However, an Israeli attack could give Iran grounds for retaliation.
Despite these dangers, Israel-with U.S. encouragement-has long considered the possibility of an attack against Iran.
In the mid-1990s, prior to the election of the U.S.-backed Likud government of Benyamin Netanyahu to office, the peace process with the Palestinians was progressing steadily, a peace treaty had been signed with Jordan, and diplomatic and commercial ties with other Arab states was growing. With the prospects of a permanent Israeli-Arab peace, American arms exporters and their allies in Congress and the Clinton administration, along with their hawkish counterparts in Israel, began emphasizing the alleged threat to Israel from Iran as justification for the more than $2 billion worth of annual U.S. taxpayer subsidies for U.S. arms exporters for them to send weapons to Israel. Among these was an agreement to provide Israel with sophisticated F-15 fighter bombers. As the peace process faltered due to increased repression and colonization by Israel and increased terrorism from radical Palestinian groups and as reformists appeared to be gaining momentum in Iran, Israel began focusing upon more immediate threats closer to home, though deliveries of the F-15s continued through 2001.
Last year, however, the United States unexpectedly provided Israel with an additional thirty long-range F-15s at a cost of $48 million each. The United States has also recently provided Israel with 5000 GBU-27 and GBU-28 weapons, better known as "bunker busters," warheads guided by lasers or satellites which can penetrate up to ten meters of earth and concrete to destroy suspected underground facilities. Reuters reported a senior Israeli security source as noting, "This is not the sort of ordinance needed for the Palestinian front. Bunker busters could serve Israel against Iran Š" Israel also has at least five submarines armed with sea-launched missiles which could easily get within range of Iranian targets.
One scenario reportedly has Israel sending three squadrons of F15s to fly over Jordanian and Iraqi airspace, currently controlled by the U.S. air force, to strike at major Iranian facilities. The United States would provide satellite information for the attack as well as refueling for the Israeli jets as they leave Iranian air space for their return to Israel. The Sunday Times has reported that the Israelis have been "coordinating with American forces" for such a scenario. That same article described Israeli commando training operations at a full-sized mockup of Iran's Natanz nuclear facility at a military facility in Israel's Negev Desert and the dispatch of clandestine Israeli Special Forces units into Iran. Meanwhile, the Israeli Ofek-6 spy satellite is now reported to have been moved to an orbit over Iranian facilities.
As far back as April 2004, President Bush exchanged letters with Sharon in which he stated, in reference to Iran, that, "Israel has the right to defend itself with its own forces."
Despite the widely-held tail-wagging-the-dog assumptions, history has shown that the United States has frequently used Israel to advance its strategic interests in the region and beyond, such as aiding pro-Western governments and pro-Western insurgencies, keeping radical nationalist governments like Syria in check and engaging in covert interventions in Jordan, Lebanon, and now Kurdistan. During the 1980s, Israel was used to funnel arms to third parties the United States could not arm directly, such as the apartheid regime South Africa, the Guatemalan junta, the Nicaraguan Contras, and, ironically, the Iranian mullahs. Israel's bombing of Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981-despite formal criticism-was enthusiastically supported by the Reagan administration.
One Israeli analyst was quoted as saying in the Washington Post during the Iran-Contra scandal, "It's like Israel has become just another federal agency, one that's convenient to use when you want something done quietly." Nathan Shahan wrote in Yediot Ahronot that his country serves as the "Godfather's messenger," since Israel "undertakes the dirty work of the Godfather, who always tries to appear to be the owner of some large respectable business." Israeli satirist B. Michael describes U.S. aid to Israel as a situation where "My master gives me food to eat and I bite those whom he tells me to bite. It's called strategic cooperation."
Just as the ruling elites of medieval Europe used the Jews as money-lenders and tax collectors to avoid the wrath of an exploited population, the elites of the world's one remaining superpower would similarly be quite willing to use Israel to do their dirty work against Iran. That way Israel, not the United States, will get the blame. (In fact, there are those who blame Israel even when the United States takes military action itself, such as the various conspiracy theories now circulating that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was done on behalf of Israel.)
On May 16, 2006, at 10:10 AM, Bryan Atinsky wrote:
>Not that it isn't something that I would support, but, to be frank, I
>think it is more likely that Azmi Bishara will become PM of Israel than
>that the Israel government will freely give up its nuclear armaments.
>
>Anyway, first yah gotta git us to admit we gots em in da first
>place...ainahey?
>
>Bryan
>
>
><mailto:uvj at vsnl.com>uvj at vsnl.com wrote:
>
>>Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
>><http://www.thebulletin.org/index.htm>http://www.thebulletin.org/index.htm
>>
>>Defusing the nuclear Middle East
>><http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=mj04ramberg>http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=mj04ramberg
>>
>>It would take some doing, including the imposition of an effective
>>enforcement mechanism, but a nuclear-free zone could be the best answer to
>>proliferation in the Middle East.
>>
>___________________________________
<http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk