Israel Seeks All Clear for Iran Air Strike
by Con Coughlin for the Telegraph
February 24, 2007
Israel is negotiating with the United States for permission to fly over Iraq as part of a plan to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, The Daily Telegraph can reveal. To conduct surgical air strikes against Iran's nuclear programme, Israeli war planes would need to fly across Iraq. But to do so the Israeli military authorities in Tel Aviv need permission from the Pentagon.
A senior Israeli defence official said negotiations were now underway between the two countries for the US-led coalition in Iraq to provide an "air corridor" in the event of the Israeli government deciding on unilateral military action to prevent Teheran developing nuclear weapons. "We are planning for every eventuality, and sorting out issues such as these are crucially important," said the official, who asked not to be named. "The only way to do this is to fly through US-controlled air space. If we don't sort these issues out now we could have a situation where American and Israeli war planes start shooting at each other."
As Iran continues to defy UN demands to stop producing material which could be used to build a nuclear bomb, Israel's military establishment is moving on to a war footing, with preparations now well under way for the Jewish state to launch air strikes against Teheran if diplomatic efforts fail to resolve the crisis. The pace of military planning in Israel has accelerated markedly since the start of this year after Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, provided a stark intelligence assessment that Iran, given the current rate of progress being made on its uranium enrichment programme, could have enough fissile material for a nuclear warhead by 2009.
Last week Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, announced that he had persuaded Meir Dagan, the head of Mossad for the past six years and one of Israel's leading experts on Iran's nuclear programme, to defer his retirement until at least the end of next year. Mr Olmert has also given overall control of the military aspects of the Iran issue to Eliezer Shkedi, the head of the Israeli Air Force and a former F-16 fighter pilot. The international community will increase the pressure on Iran when senior officials from the five permanent of the United Nations Security Council and Germany meet at an emergency summit to be held in London on Monday.
Iran ignored a UN deadline of last Wednesday to halt uranium enrichment. Officials will discuss arms controls and whether to cut back on the $25 billion-worth of export credits which are used by European companies to trade with Iran. A high-ranking British source said: "There is a debate within the six countries on sanctions and economic measures." British officials insist that this "incremental" approach of tightening the pressure on Iran is starting to turn opinion within Iran. One source said: "We are on the right track. There is time for diplomacy to take effect."
[If such a crazy plan comes to fruition and Israel actually attacks Iran with US approval I shudder to think what the consequences will be. Certainly it will make the present fighting in the Middle East look positively calm by comparison. Haven't people learnt yet that military 'solutions' normally turn out to be anything but solutions?]
9 comments:
If such a crazy plan comes to fruition and Israel actually attacks Iran with US approval I shudder to think what the consequences will be. Certainly it will make the present fighting in the Middle East look positively calm by comparison. Haven't people learnt yet that military 'solutions' normally turn out to be anything but solutions?
If Israel can successfully take out Iraq's nuclear capability with a coordinated, conventional airstrike, I would support it. Without an invasion, we wouldn't be looking at a quagmire like Iraq. Iran already hates Israel and wants it destroyed and it's not like it will harm Israel's image any more with the rest of the world. What they did to Osirak was, in my opinion, a good thing, and no real harm came of it.
The problem, of course, is that the airstrike may not be feasible due to Iran learning from the Osirak attack. I'd certainly oppose any nuclear attack (including "bunker-busters") or invasion as the costs would outweigh the benefits.
JA said: If Israel can successfully take out Iraq's nuclear capability with a coordinated, conventional airstrike, I would support it.
But JA.... What about the consequences? Even if they could take out the facility cleanly (and without using nukes) what do you think will happen? Will Iran give up whatever nuclear ambitions it has? No. Of course not. It will probably make them *more* determined. Will it provoke attacks in retaliation both in Iraq & against Israel? Almost certainly.
At the very best a fully sucessful attack on the Iranian nuclear facilities will delay the programme by a few years - at best. You can also bet your last dollar that their next facility will *only* be taken out by nukes.
Iran will never be invaded by the USA - that's just political suicide (to say nothing of the countless dead Americans/Iranians) - and I think that only the Americans would even contimplate the idea. There will be no 'coalition of the willing' for that particular adventure.
So we're preparing for WWIII and nuclear annilation? Business as usual. As for "Iran will never be invaded by the USA - that's just political suicide," as if this administration hasn't attempted political suicide numerous times before?
By allowing an Iraq flyover, we might as well just be giving a complete friggin' endorsement. If Israel wants to do something for what it considers their national defense (which is within their right), that is fine. But the time for blindly rubberstamping and being afraid to criticize anything Israel does is past. Kristof of the NY Times speaks to this: US should stop biting tongue on Israel
But JA.... What about the consequences?
I don't see how there would be many. Iran might lob some conventional missiles at Israel like Saddam did with the Scuds during the first war with very little damage.
Will Iran give up whatever nuclear ambitions it has?
No. But it would set them back at least a decade probably, during which time who knows what will happen.
By allowing an Iraq flyover, we might as well just be giving a complete friggin' endorsement.
I agree that it would be seen, correctly, as an endorsement. But the U.S. would also gain a lot from preventing a nuclear Iran.
BTW, what do you all think of the Osirak attack?
It's debatable whether the Osirak attack completely worked, as Saddam actually stepped it up after the attack, putting even more resources into it. Some things to think about:
- it might not get all the nuclear program
- it would provide the reasons for Iran to take themselves out of the Non-Proliferation treaty and to accelerate (not slow down) their nuclear program.
The BBC had a pretty good article that addressed this question:
Iran: Can a miltary strike work?
- it might not get all the nuclear program
That's the biggie for me. If the attack does not succeed, obviously it would do more harm than good. I still believe the Israelis are very competent at this kind of thing (as opposed to winning hearts and minds, etc.)
it would provide the reasons for Iran to take themselves out of the Non-Proliferation treaty and to accelerate (not slow down) their nuclear program.
Seems to me Iran already has all the motive it needs to build nukes. I'd sure try if I were them.
JA said: I don't see how there would be many [consequences].
Really? They could step up their involvement in the 'insurgency' in Iraq endangering more Allied lives. They could increase aid to Hezbollah and other organisations giving them capabilities they can only dream of at present. They could fund organisations all over the world just itching to attack Jewish/American interests. Then there are the knock on effects on other arab/muslim states around the world. Increased arms sales (particularly air-defence I'm guessing). An attack will increase the already unstable conditions in the region and increase the tempo of any arms race already in place.
JA said: But the U.S. would also gain a lot from preventing a nuclear Iran.
Maybe so. But should the USA be in the business of dictating who can and cannot join the nuclear club? It also seems that being a nuclear power would prevent the US and its allies from attacking a particular state (N Korea). Hence attacks on non-nuclear states actually increases the desire of countries antagonistic to the US to gain nuclear capability.
JA said: If the attack does not succeed, obviously it would do more harm than good.
I think that the odds of a completely sucessful attack are low. The site appears to be very well defended. Some are even talking of using tactical nukes against it as the only way to be sure. This is madness piled on madness.
JA said: Seems to me Iran already has all the motive it needs to build nukes. I'd sure try if I were them.
Exactly. An attack on their facility will make that more likely not less.
Post a Comment