Israel may well attack Iran soon

blackchip · Jun 7, 2008

Given Roubini is an alarmist.

Here is an interesting analysis from the former German foreign minister - Fischer and Roubini's comments.

Friday, May 30, 2008

As things look, Israel may well attack Iran soon

By Joschka Fischer
Commentary by

As a result of misguided American policy, the threat of another military confrontation hangs like a dark cloud over the Middle East. The United States' enemies have been strengthened, and Iran - despite being branded as a member of the so-called "axis of evil" - has been catapulted into regional hegemony. Iran could never have achieved this on its own, certainly not in such a short time.

A hitherto latent rivalry between Iran and Israel thus has been transformed into an open struggle for dominance in the Middle East. The result has been the emergence of some surprising, if not bizarre, alliances: Iran, Syria, Hizbullah, Hamas and the American-backed, Shiite-dominated Iraq are facing Israel, Saudi Arabia, and most of the other Sunni Arab states, all of which feel existentially threatened by Iran's ascendance.

The danger of a major confrontation has been heightened further by a series of factors: persistently high oil prices, which have created new financial and political opportunities for Iran; the possible defeat of the West and its regional allies in proxy wars in Gaza and Lebanon; and the United Nations Security Council's failure to induce Iran to accept even a temporary freeze of its nuclear program.

Iran's nuclear program is the decisive factor in this equation, for it threatens irreversibly the region's strategic balance. That Iran - a country whose president never tires of calling for Israel's annihilation and that threatens Israel's northern and southern borders through its massive support of proxy wars waged by Hizbullah and Hamas - might one day have missiles with nuclear warheads is Israel's worst security nightmare. Politics is not just about facts, but also about perceptions. Whether or not a perception is accurate is beside the point, because it nonetheless leads to decisions.

This applies in particular when the perception concerns what the parties consider to be threats to their very existence. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's threats of annihilation are taken seriously in Israel because of the trauma of the Holocaust. And most Arab governments share the fear of a nuclear Iran. Earlier this month, Israel celebrated its 60th birthday, and US President George W. Bush went to Jerusalem to play a leading part in the commemoration. But those who had expected that his visit would mainly be about the stalled negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians were bitterly disappointed. Bush's central topic, including his speech to Israel's Knesset, was Iran. Bush had promised to bring the Middle East conflict closer to a resolution before the end of his term this year. But his final visit to Israel seemed to indicate that his objective was different: he seemed to be planning, together with Israel, to end the Iranian nuclear program - and to do so by military, rather than by diplomatic, means.

Anyone following the press in Israel during the anniversary celebrations and listening closely to what was said in Jerusalem did not have to be a prophet to understand that matters are coming to a head. Consider the following:

First, "stop the appeasement!" is a demand raised across the political spectrum in Israel - and what is meant is the nuclear threat emanating from Iran.

Second, while Israel celebrated, Defense Minister Ehud Barak was quoted as saying that a life-and-death military confrontation was a distinct possibility.

Third, the outgoing commander of the Israeli Air Force declared that the air force was capable of any mission, no matter how difficult, to protect the country's security. The destruction of a Syrian nuclear facility last year, and the lack of any international reaction to it, were viewed as an example for the coming action against Iran.

Fourth, the Israeli wish list for US arms deliveries, discussed with the American president, focused mainly on the improvement of the attack capabilities and precision of the Israeli Air Force.

Fifth, diplomatic initiatives and UN sanctions when it comes to Iran are seen as hopelessly ineffective.

And sixth, with the approaching end of the Bush presidency and uncertainty about his successor's policy, the window of opportunity for Israeli action is seen as potentially closing.

The last two factors carry special weight. While Israeli military intelligence is on record as saying that Iran is expected to cross the red line on the path to nuclear power between 2010 and 2015 at the earliest, the feeling in Israel is that the political window of opportunity to attack is now, during the last months of Bush's presidency.

Although it is acknowledged in Israel that an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would involve grave and hard-to-assess risks, the choice between acceptance of an Iranian bomb and an attempt at its military destruction, with all the attendant consequences, is clear. Israel won't stand by and wait for matters to take their course.

The Middle East is drifting toward a new great confrontation in 2008. Iran must understand that without a diplomatic solution in the coming months, a dangerous military conflict is very likely to erupt. It is high time for serious negotiations to begin.

The most recent offer by the six powers - the UN Security Council's five permanent members plus Germany - is on the table, and it goes very far in accommodating Iran's interests. The decisive question, however, will be whether it will be possible to freeze the Iranian nuclear program for the duration of the negotiations to avoid a military confrontation before these negotiations are completed. Should this newest attempt fail, things will soon get serious. Deadly serious.

Joschka Fischer, Germany's foreign minister and vice chancellor from 1998 to 2005, led Germany's Green Party for nearly 20 years. THE DAILY STAR publishes this commentary in collaboration with Project Syndicate-Institute for Human Sciences (c) (www.project-syndicate.org).
More...

blackchip · Jun 7, 2008

Will Israel Attack Iranâs Nuclear Facilities Before the End of the Bush Administration? Joschka Fischer Argues Yes
Nouriel Roubini | Jun 2, 2008

I had the pleasure to meet and speak at length over the weekend with Joschka Fischer, former Foreign Minister of Germany and one of the deepest geo-strategic thinkers in the world. He argued with me that â as he fleshed out in a a recent article he wrote for the Project Syndicate â Israel will attack Iranâs nuclear facilities before the end of the Bush administration and that Israel effectively received the green light to this action from Bush during his recent visit to Israel. Fischer was recently in Israel to attend the celebrations for the 60th anniversary of Israel creation. A variety of factors and conversations â fleshed out in his article â have led him to the conclusion that Israel will attack Iran before the end of the Bush administration. This is just an opinion of one â however influential and well-connected â observer; but the arguments that Fischer makes on why Israel may go ahead sound compelling. We certainly donât know if Israel will act that early â and certainly Israel has signaled that it will not accept an Iran that is nuclear - but let us consider the economic and financial consequences of such action.

First, even before Iran may try to retaliate to this action by trying to block the flow of oil from the Gulf, oil prices would spike above $200 dollar a barrel.

Second, Iran could react militarily to such Israeli action (that would be taken with the tacit support and the military logistic support of the US) by unleashing its supporters in Iraq against the US military forces there. That would trigger a military reaction by the US that would start a sustained air-led bombing campaign against Iranâs military capabilities (air force, anti-aircraft defenses, radar and other military installations, etc.)

Third, Iran would unleash its supporters in Lebanon and Gaza (Hezbollah and Hamas) in a military confrontation with Israel. A broader war will follow in the Middle East.

Fourth, Iran would use both the threat of blocking the flow of oil out of the Gulf and an actual sharp reduction of its exports of oil (an embargo) to spike the price of oil. Oil prices would rapidly rise above $200 per barrel and the US and global economy would spin into a severe stagflationary recession (like those triggered by the sharp spikes in the prices of oil following the staflationary shocks of the Yom Kippur war in 1973, the Iranian revolution in 1979 and the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990).

Fifth, while Sunni regimes may â in private â sigh relief following the destruction of the nuclear capabilities of the Shiite Iranian regime â the Sunni Arab street (the masses of poor Sunnis) from Algeria to Egypt and all the way to Pakistan, India and Indonesia may become even more anti-Western and anti-American leading to the risk over time of rise of anti-Western fundamentalist regimes in many Arab countries.

Sixth, the Bush administration whose hands have been tied by the new National Intelligence Estimate (that argued that Iran had suspended its program of development of nuclear weapons) would thus be able to strike Iran â via Israel - before the end of its term. Such October surprise by Israel would also certainly lead to the election of McCain and defeat of Obama as a national security crisis of such an extent would doom the chances of Democrats to win the White House. So both Israel â that prefers McCain to Obama and is hurried to act as it is wary of the constraints that an Obama presidency may put on its ability to act against Iran â and the Bush administration would guarantee the election of McCain.

Now, it is not certain â as argued by Fischer â that Israel will strike that early; this is just a guess and a prediction by one observer even if many others think likewise. But if such action were to be taken by Israel the consequences outlined above would be the clear outcome: a major global recession, wars throughout the Middle East (Iran, Iraq, Gaza, Lebanon, Israel, etc.) and a major increase in geopolitical instability.
More...

http://www.rgemonitor.com/blog/roubini

afuturetrader · Jun 7, 2008

I don't think they are going to do it, but if they do I'm afriad they might do it the wrong way, there is no reason to keep repeating that they will attack iran and when they will attack, like yesterday; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...threatens-to-strike-Iran's-nuclear-plans.html

it's actually giving them enough time to come up with crazy plans, the best way is to attack without any prior warning, and to bomb the country suddenly and to the point of extinction

abducens · Jun 7, 2008

Everyone thought we would attack Iran. Why should we when Israel can do it for us. Iran will welcome democracy.

ssierra · Jun 7, 2008

Quote from abducens:

... Iran will welcome democracy.
More...

Do you mean as Irak??

piezoe · Jun 7, 2008

It should be obvious to everyone why (from the point of view of an Iranian) Iran desperately needs nuclear retaliatory capability.

Though Iran's interference in Iraq is annoying and dangerous and so is Ahmadinejad's threatening rhetoric, the way to address these transgressions is via diplomacy, not bombers. If Iran gets nuclear strike capability, let's hope they don't but they well could, the most likely outcome is not the destruction of Isreal, which already has nuclear weapons, but rather an uneasy coexistence of the two countries in which despite nasty rhetoric they leave each other alone. That would not be such a bad thing and preferable to the present situation where Isreal is unconstrained.

Isreal's consistent belligerence and hard line have failed for 60 years to achieve security and freedom from terrorist attacks. They are less secure, not more, because of their policies. Isreal is its own worst enemy. The murder of Yitzhak Rabin in 1994 by an Israeli citizen on the eve of their best chance in many years to achieve a lasting peace underscored how hopeless the Isreali situation is.

I do not think that Isreal's bombing of Iran on the eve of the American Election would necessarily guarantee a McCain victory. American's have had it up to here with Mideast entanglement and endless wars. I believe such a move by Isreal, particularly if it was with American support and encouragement, would produce an even bigger backlash against the foreign policies of the present Bush administration than already exists. Such a move might very well have exactly the opposite effect hoped for by Israel, the American Zionist coalition and the present American President, and in fact, sweep Obama into the White House on the heels of an overwhelming victory.

377OHMS · Jun 7, 2008

Iran and much of the world actually think that the hamas and hezbolla surrounding Israel represent a real military threat. What a joke.

If Israel attacked the Iranian nuke facilities Iran would unleash the rocket launching terrorists that surround Israel.

Israel would simply treat these attacks from gaza and southern lebanon as though they were attacking a real army and destroy the entire place. Southern lebanon will, this time, be cleared and become a buffer zone which Israel will not give back, sort of like the golan heights taken from Syria. It won't be given back. Thats what I call a real-estate deal.

Its high time really. Israel is actually anxious to get it all over with at this point. If Iran flips out in response and starts harrassing the USN in the Gulf the U.S. will likely take Kargh Island in response. So much for Iranian oil exports by sea. The oil will be appropriated by the U.S. and Iran will get U.N. oil-for-food etc. U.N. oil-for-food officials will drive up Manhattan real-estate prices with their oil/cash kickbacks.

Haliburton will be offerring condos on Kargh Island. Give Dubai some competition lol.

Syprik · Jun 7, 2008

Quote from 377OHMS:

Iran and much of the world actually think that the hamas and hezbolla surrounding Israel represent a real military threat. What a joke.

If Israel attacked the Iranian nuke facilities Iran would unleash the rocket launching terrorists that surround Israel.

Israel would simply treat these attacks from gaza and southern lebanon as though they were attacking a real army and destroy the entire place. Southern lebanon will, this time, be cleared and become a buffer zone which Israel will not give back, sort of like the golan heights taken from Syria. It won't be given back. Thats what I call a real-estate deal.

Its high time really. Israel is actually anxious to get it all over with at this point. If Iran flips out in response and starts harrassing the USN in the Gulf the U.S. will likely take Kargh Island in response. So much for Iranian oil exports by sea. The oil will be appropriated by the U.S. and Iran will get U.N. oil-for-food etc. U.N. oil-for-food officials will drive up Manhattan real-estate prices with their oil/cash kickbacks.

Haliburton will be offerring condos on Kargh Island. Give Dubai some competition lol.
More...

If you are actually serious with this post, I apologize in advance for being a bit offensive, but you are in far left field.

1st, no sane leader in Israel would announce intent to strike Iran in public. This is saber-rattling 101.

2nd, have you at all calculated the potential consequence a strike on Iran would have for our interests/forces in fragile Iraq (a majority Shite population)?

3rd, ever contemplate the resulting side-effects when truly angering the world's fourth largest oil producer in today's oil climate? It is China's top supplier. Syria, Gaza, WB, Lebanon, Hezbollah and Iraq... all minuscule in significance compared to Iran's potential economic(oil) leverage.

This strikes me as just another potential self-centered and short-sighted approach by Israel.

blackchip · Jun 7, 2008

Couple of points -

The Olmert gov't in Israel is about to crumble due to corruption charges involving an American "businessman".

If Iran chooses it can wreck the world economy in the near term as retaliation -

Israel would immediately be attacked from the north and south. But that's just a side show.

A few of Iran's supersonic missiles sink a super tanker in the strait of hormuz and oil goes easily over $200 as millions of bbd are removed from the world markets.

The US Navy has no defense against these missiles and Iran could even attack a carrier group in the Gulf while moving the missile sites around the low hills of the coastline.

The US cannot invade Iran like it did Iraq. Iran is mountain fighting like the former Yugoslavia. Likely, no other country would help and China and Russia would side with and supply Iran.

Iran is currently cooperating to maintain relative stability in Afghanistan. If Iran is attacked, the US would probably lose Afghanistan to extremists and Pakistan is possible. The taliban are back now (you won't hear it from the US media). Of course Pakistan already has nukes.

Iraq would destabilize (more). Saudi could easily destabilize.

Effectively, Iran has a knife on the throat of the industrialized countries.

This kind of move by Bush would be an "all in" bet depending on Iran's reaction.

377OHMS · Jun 7, 2008

Quote from blackchip:

The US Navy has no defense against these missiles
More...

Oh, really?