Using Bombs to Stave Off War

[babylonsister]

Sigh. We haven't even been informed what Iran's nuclear capabilities are, but no matter. Bomb bomb bomb...


Using Bombs to Stave Off War

By BENNY MORRIS
Published: July 18, 2008


ISRAEL will almost surely attack Iran’s nuclear sites in the next four to seven months — and the leaders in Washington and even Tehran should hope that the attack will be successful enough to cause at least a significant delay in the Iranian production schedule, if not complete destruction, of that country’s nuclear program. Because if the attack fails, the Middle East will almost certainly face a nuclear war — either through a subsequent pre-emptive Israeli nuclear strike or a nuclear exchange shortly after Iran gets the bomb.

It is in the interest of neither Iran nor the United States (nor, for that matter, the rest of the world) that Iran be savaged by a nuclear strike, or that both Israel and Iran suffer such a fate. We know what would ensue: a traumatic destabilization of the Middle East with resounding political and military consequences around the globe, serious injury to the West’s oil supply and radioactive pollution of the earth’s atmosphere and water.

But should Israel’s conventional assault fail to significantly harm or stall the Iranian program, a ratcheting up of the Iranian-Israeli conflict to a nuclear level will most likely follow. Every intelligence agency in the world believes the Iranian program is geared toward making weapons, not to the peaceful applications of nuclear power. And, despite the current talk of additional economic sanctions, everyone knows that such measures have so far led nowhere and are unlikely to be applied with sufficient scope to cause Iran real pain, given Russia’s and China’s continued recalcitrance and Western Europe’s (and America’s) ambivalence in behavior, if not in rhetoric. Western intelligence agencies agree that Iran will reach the “point of no return” in acquiring the capacity to produce nuclear weapons in one to four years.

Which leaves the world with only one option if it wishes to halt Iran’s march toward nuclear weaponry: the military option, meaning an aerial assault by either the United States or Israel. Clearly, America has the conventional military capacity to do the job, which would involve a protracted air assault against Iran’s air defenses followed by strikes on the nuclear sites themselves. But, as a result of the Iraq imbroglio, and what is rapidly turning into the Afghan imbroglio, the American public has little enthusiasm for wars in the Islamic lands. This curtails the White House’s ability to begin yet another major military campaign in pursuit of a goal that is not seen as a vital national interest by many Americans.

Which leaves only Israel — the country threatened almost daily with destruction by Iran’s leaders. Thus the recent reports about Israeli plans and preparations to attack Iran (the period from Nov. 5 to Jan. 19 seems the best bet, as it gives the West half a year to try the diplomatic route but ensures that Israel will have support from a lame-duck White House).

The problem is that Israel’s military capacities are far smaller than America’s and, given the distances involved, the fact that the Iranian sites are widely dispersed and underground, and Israel’s inadequate intelligence, it is unlikely that the Israeli conventional forces, even if allowed the use of Jordanian and Iraqi airspace (and perhaps, pending American approval, even Iraqi air strips) can destroy or perhaps significantly delay the Iranian nuclear project.

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/opinion/18morris.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[bemildred]

1. I wonder who talked Morris into writing such drivel?

As a soi disant historian, I would expect him to be more careful about his reputation.

[babylonsister]

2. This made me ill. He's adding fuel to this fire. nt

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. ... is like using copulation to prevent pregnancy. n/t

[Blue Meany]

4. Morris knows the Israeli political scene

very well, and he is well-connected there, so I would take is analysis of the thinking among Israeli leaders very seriously. Indeed, he is echoing the thikning Israeli political/military leaders, who have been willing to take unilateral preemptive action against "existential threats" that could threaten the state of Israel. (You can see that influence of this thinking on American Neocons, who argue that we must use our current military advanatage to keep anyone from developing a military that could threaten our superiority).

On the other hand, Morris is not an Iranian specialist and his depiction of Iranian politics, thinking, and motivations is simplistic to the point of being a caricature. Moreover, it is simply not true that all of the world's intelligence agencies have concluded that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, though it would certainly be understandable if they were. Morris is smart enough to know that he is off the mark on his Iran analysis, so this is clearly a piece of propaganda, and since it was published in the NYT, we can presume it was intended to engender support for an American attack on Iran to avoid a nuclear attack by Israel. It sound a lot like blacmail to me.

[azul]

5. The Empire of War Inc. lies by necessity,

for who in their right mind would choose violence if truth be known. It thrives on peoples' ignorance and works on their vulnerabilities to direct the economy into the business of destruction at the expense of all else.

Elect us an educator in chief to dispell this madness. The US and Israeli militaries are not to be used as mercenaries for international war profiteering industries.

[Karenina]

6. Makes as Much Sense as Fucking for Virginity!

Another certifiably diseased nut sack. Whatever... :sigh:

[TomClash]

7. Israeli Propaganda

"Give in Iran or you will be nuked."

[paparush]

8. Yellowcake, alluminum tubes, mushroom clouds.. OH MY!

F E A R ! is all they have.

[MasonJar]

9. What a fool!