[Peace-discuss] Iran in the crosshairs?

[C. G. Estabrook]

Right. Israeli saber-rattling is primarily an attempt to inhibit an American 
rapprochement with Iran.

Robert Naiman wrote:
> "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
>>
>>
> 
> 
>