[Peace-discuss] Iran in the crosshairs?

[Robert Naiman]

"But even if the dialogue with Tehran fails, senior IDF officers
doubt whether the United States will allow Israel to go ahead with an
offensive operation.

What may be the timetable for a strike?"

If the senior IDF officers are correct - that the US is unlikely to
"allow Israel to go ahead" even if "the dialogue with Tehran fails" -
and I suspect that they are correct - what incentive do the "senior
IDF officers" have in this situation to downplay the prospect of US
approval? - then the "timetable" for an Israeli strike - the question
asked by the headline - is "never."

Kind of like that New Yorker cartoon, where the guy is on the phone
looking at his calendar, and he says, "No, Thursday doesn't work for
me...How about never? Does never work for you?"

On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Morton K. Brussel <brussel at illinois.edu> wrote:
> Note especially the interesting 4th paragraph. ---mkb
>
> Last update - 13:04 19/04/2009
> What would be the timetable for Israel strike on Iran?
> By Amos Harel
> The timing of Saturday's Times of London article, which claimed that the
> Israel Defense Forces is training for an attack on Iran on very short
> notice, is certainly no coincidence. Israel is trying to make clear that
> even though the United States plans to begin a diplomatic dialogue with
> Iran, it holds a realistic military option against Tehran's nuclear program.
> Without a deal that assuages Israel's concerns, there may be no other choice
> but to attack.
>
> About 10 days ago, Maariv reported that the new prime minister, Benjamin
> Netanyahu, was briefed on the progress of the IDF's planning on the Iranian
> question. Supposedly he was happy with what he heard. It's highly probable
> we will hear and read many more reports of this sort in the near future,
> mostly in the international media.
>
> Most senior defense figures believe that nothing positive will result from
> the dialogue between Washington and Tehran. They also acknowledge that
> Israel's ability to influence the talks is very low and that it would be
> best for Israel not to be seen as obstructing efforts to resolve the
> confrontation with Iran peacefully.
> However, the defense establishment is continuing with its preparations for
> an attack, as well as its signals to the international community and Iran
> that the plan is serious and feasible.
>
> There appears to be also an American effort to link an operation against
> Iran with a more favorable approach by Israel to peace with the
> Palestinians. An article in Yedioth Ahronoth last week suggested that the
> United States is hinting that its willingness to attack Iran (or permit
> Israel to do so) will be directly related to the Netanyahu government's
> flexibility on issues such as evacuating settlements, pullbacks from the
> West Bank and progress on a peace accord with the Palestinian Authority.
>
> It's too soon to tell if this is a trial balloon from Washington or a clear
> position. But even if the dialogue with Tehran fails, senior IDF officers
> doubt whether the United States will allow Israel to go ahead with an
> offensive operation.
>
> What may be the timetable for a strike? Updated Western intelligence
> assessments talk of fast Iranian progress and make discussions of a "point
> of no return" academic. Tehran is near the point where the question of
> whether it produces a nuclear weapon will be only a matter of choice, not
> ability.
>
> Sometime in 2010 the Iranians will have enough fissile material for a single
> weapon; the IAEA says 25 kilograms are necessary. It is unlikely the
> Iranians will waste the material on demonstrating their abilities through an
> underground explosion. Most likely they will wait a year or two and build up
> a stockpile of about 75 kilograms of fissile material, which will suffice
> for a demonstration and a weapon or two.
>
> The Iranians have another problem: It seems they still have a way to go to
> be able to place a nuclear weapon on a ballistic missile capable of reaching
> Israel. It is highly unlikely they will be able to mount a nuclear strike on
> Israel using aircraft-borne weapons, considering the Iranian air force's
> limitations.
>
> Assessments about the year Iran will be a nuclear country vary, with Israel
> stressing 2010 (nuclear capable), and the United States estimating -
> according to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates - 2013 (a nuclear weapon).
> Either way, it's clear the next two to three years will be critical. It
> remains to be seen whether Netanyahu will discuss the Iranian threat
> publicly, as did Ehud Olmert, or work behind the scenes, as did Ariel
> Sharon. His choice will not necessarily indicate his decision on a strike
> against Iran.
>
> Related articles:
> 'IDF eyes attack on Iran within hours of green light'
> Clinton 'deeply diappointed' with Iran sentencing of U.S. reporter
> Is Iran's new drone really an Israeli aircraft
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>



-- 
Robert Naiman
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org

"It's 11 AM in Washington. Do you know where your foreign policy is?"