Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

A US attack on Iran?

Expand Messages
  • Ami Isseroff
    A US attack on Iran? 18.09. 2007 http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000420.html Original content copyright by the author Zionism & Israel Center
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 18, 2007
    • 0 Attachment

      Recent reports claim that the United States is preparing for a war in Iran. A report in the Sunday Telegraph gives a large number of details, some or all of which may be quite imaginative, and not all of which are coherent. Vice President Richard Cheney is cast as the bad guy in the piece, with a reluctant Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice willing to go along with it. The motive for the attack is given variously as the Iran nuclear program, Iranian support for Shi'a insurgents in Iraq and of course, the Jewish conspiracy.

      The Telegraph story, for example, states:

      In a chilling scenario of how war might come, a senior intelligence officer warned that public denunciation of Iranian meddling in Iraq - arming and training militants - would lead to cross border raids on Iranian training camps and bomb factories.

      But the report also states:

      Senior officials believe Mr Bush's inner circle has decided he does not want to leave office without first ensuring that Iran is not capable of developing a nuclear weapon.

      Which is the motive, Iraq or nuclear weapons? It is possible that the one is a foil for the other, or that both are motives. It would not be the first time that motives for major policy moves are unclear. On the other hand, it could all be bumph.

      When a "leak" of this type occurs, we have to ask 1. Is it true? and 2. Who benefits from the leak? There are many possibilities, such as:

      A. Story is true - Anything is possible, and given the U.S. military buildup in the Gulf, we cannot rule out the possibility that a war is in the offing. On the other hand, given Iranian military bluster, we cannot rule out the possibility that the US buildup is defensive.

      B. Story is false, leak was originated by the government - The US has no real intention of invading Iran, but it does want to create the impression that this is an option, in order to discourage Iranian trouble-making in Iraq, and in order to spur tougher stands on sanctions against Iran by China and Russia. France has now moved into the anti-Iran column and is no longer to be reckoned among the protectors of Iran.

      C. Story is false, leak was originated by disaffected US officials, or creative journalists - The Iran lobby has been diligently building the story that the U.S. has no cause for a quarrel with Iran, and that only evil Zionists and neoconservatives are pushing for a war with no cause.

      The third explanation is bolstered by some of the quotes in the Sunday Telegraph story, and especially this one:

      In a chilling scenario of how war might come, a senior intelligence officer warned that public denunciation of Iranian meddling in Iraq - arming and training militants - would lead to cross border raids on Iranian training camps and bomb factories.

      In an ingenious way, the quote discredits in advance any attempt by the US to counter Iranian activity in Iraq. If Iran is really interfering in the Iraq war, then the US has every right to take steps against it. But in the light of this quote, any attempt to move against Iran would be interpreted as a provocation intended to start a war. The story itself was not reported by the Telegraph with professional neutrality, since the headline is "Bush setting America up for war with Iran."

      The idea that the US is planning a war against Iran that would not be justified by circumstances, is "setting it up," is unlikely. Such a war would be extremely risky and probably would not achieve its objectives. The objectives of such a war would or should be to put an end to the Iran nuclear development program, to stop Iranian pretensions to "hegemony." and to end Iranian meddling in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine. An operation that failed would leave the bellicose faction in charge in Iran, and bolstered by a new "victory" over the U.S. -- a scenario the U.S. cannot afford. The only way to ensure that this is not the result is to be prepared for a land invasion, but the US is certainly not prepared for a land invasion, which would require well over a million soldiers to be successful. The only operation that is rumored to be on the drawing boards is an air-strike. An air-strike, even a big one, is not likely to wipe out the hardened underground bunkers where Iran's nuclear capabilities are being developed. It would certainly turn Iran into an angry elephant, and with no ground troops to stop them, the Iranians could do a lot of damage.

      As for the Zionists, those anti-Zionists and Zionists as well who fantasize about such an attack and think it is in Israel's interests should think again. A U.S. failure in Iran, following the disaster in Iraq, would be very bad for the U.S. It would be catastrophic for Israel.

      Ami Isseroff

      Original content is Copyright by the author 2007. Posted at ZioNation-Zionism and Israel Web Log, http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000420.html where your intelligent and constructive comments are welcome. Disributed by ZNN list. Subscribe by sending a message to ZNN-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. Please forward by e-mail with this notice, cite this article and link to it. Other uses by permission only.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.