Prof. Shai Feldman speaks to the editorial staff of The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday.
Posted on 05/16/2007 8:43:26 AM PDT by bedolido
While arguing that economic sanctions against Teheran still have a chance of bearing fruit, a top strategic expert predicted on Tuesday that the Bush administration could conduct a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities toward the end of its term in office.
"I, for one, don't exclude the possibility that the US will act," Shai Feldman, currently director of the Crown Center for Middle East studies at Brandeis University, told an editorial meeting of The Jerusalem Post. "My feeling, though, is that if it will act, it will act in the last months of the administration, mostly because I think that they are inclined to try to give the other options the fullest possible chance."
Prof. Shai Feldman speaks to the editorial staff of The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday.
(Excerpt) Read more at jpost.com ...
I have heard from folks around DC(whom I suspect know about such things) that the president will not leave the White House without striking Iran to deny it use of nuclear weapons.
OJ, NTSA...
Or not.
I’m not much of a fan of the “Strike Iran at end of term and let the next guy deal with the fallout” strategy.
Fallout is particularly apt in this context.
The alternative, waiting until these Islamic crazies actually have nukes and can use them, is unthinkable.
Near zero modulus of authenticity.
Well, that would be a sure fire way to destroy what is left of the GOP.
I’m guessing sometime in December, 2008, so it won’t look political?
Intrade’s futures expire in 2007. That leaves off the latter 2/3rds of the remainder of Bush’s term. The article said, “towards the end of his term.”
That ain't much. They are so self inflicted with destroying themselves, that any act Bush does will not hurt much. How do you kill what is already dead?
I think you’re on to something.
Point taken.
Then it’s a win all the way around from Bush’s point of view.
Anyone else notice these kinds of pronouncements are made once every six months or so?
Then Seymour Hersh can finally be right for a change. He’s the world’s greatest writer. /s
And monkeys may fly out of my butt.
Unless there is a Democrat in the White House, in which case WE will apologize to Iran, and wring our hands. Iran is sending people into Iraq that are openly attacking U.S. forces right now.
“Iran is sending people into Iraq that are openly attacking U.S. forces right now.”
And we aren’t doing a G-damn thing about it.
That is similar to a scenario that I’ve pulled right out of the air. The Bush administration concentrates on the surge strategy in Iraq and merely keeps the pressure on Iran through November 2008, forgoing action against Iran in order not to harm Republican prospects with a war-weary electorate. In November the election brings what it brings and then Team Bush has ten weeks free and clear to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities. This is plenty of time and with a Pres. Fred Thompson waiting in the wings could be done with complete coordination with the incoming administration. If there’s a ‘Rat President-elect, well what’s so bad about forcing them to face reality right out of the gate?
I learned this from the weather man:
"If you keep rain in the forecast your bound to be right sooner or later."
Regards,
GtG
Bush may strike Iran near end of term.... or he won’t. It’s definitely going to be one of those.
Classic non-story.
Every illegal alien in this country should be given a 3 year term in the Middle east cleaning out the terrorists and converting them to Christianity. Then citizenship.
Yes, and, “You don’t need a weather man to see which way the wind blows.”
If so, I will support him. But unfortunately, this Prez cannot see why illegal immigration is wrong, is willing to allow more, not less Middle Eastern immigrants in including Muslims from Palestine, including Hamas rejects!. This Prez cannot apparently see that his policies have led to Pub defeat after defeat. So, if he finally decides to strike, it will at least bring back some lost respect by many in the BASE, including myself.
Well, let's see. Since Team Bush so magnificently prepared for the aftermath of removing Saddam from power, I suppose it makes sense to assume that dismantling Iran will be just as successful.
Where Democrats really come from.. :)
The idea the "Bush may attack Iran" kind of jumps right over the constitutional requirement for Congress to declare war. We should never let congress delegate this responsibility to the executive branch EVER AGAIN, which is exactly what a vote to "authorize the use of force is", a delegation of constitutional authority. It's unconstitutional first and foremost, and, it fosters an environment where cowards can make political gain.
How so?
I am unimpressed by those who blankly state that the difficulties we face in Iraq are the fault of poor planning by the Bush Administration. Couple that with a snide, condescending tone and what I hear is leftist Kool-Aid talking.
New meaning to “cut and run”?
Yes, the president does not seem to see what his policies and wild entitlement spending mean. To say nothing of how this White House has sat back and allowed its critics to attack it savagely without fighting back. This is especially true of the war in Iraq. He allows his policies to get shredded by the Democrats, and seldom fights back.
Hit Iran before he leaves office? Fine with me. This whole deal with the mullahs and their lust for a nuclear weapon reminds me of the Nazi occupation of the Rhineland in 1936, and how it could have been stopped - by the French.
Well, hell, we ain’t the French, by the grace of God.
Bush has said he will not allow Iranian nukes, time will tell. I wonder what Israel is planning.
I agree it’s the Congress who has that power. One thing I’ve wondered- what if nukes are airborne and about to hit us. Should we gather Congress together to declare war? I think it might be a bit difficult, unless Congress has prepared for such possiblities in advance.
The 'Rats are trying to lose the war and drag America down and they have the media on their side. Many Republican officeholders have lost their nerve and are looking out for themselves. Many voters are cowed and discouraged by the anti-American propaganda everywhere. The 'Rats showed in November 2006 that they know how to win elections. I think it a reasonable possibility that the President and his advisors might decide that a strike on Iran now would result in a 'Rat President-elect and increased 'Rat majorities in Congress after November 2008. It is the President's sworn duty to defend the country from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Political reality and the long-term security of the Republic must be taken into account. Doing the "right thing" and letting the chips fall where they may is not the moral or honorable course if it results in forseeable harm to our country. The 'Rats are going to do stupid things regardless. If a 'Rat is elected President in '08, the choice will be 'Rat stupidity and Iranian nuke capabilities intact versus 'Rat stupidity and a weakened Iran. I prefer the latter.
Will it?
"We will not tolerate nuclear weapons in North Korea." - President Bush, May 2003 Link
Good question. Does the executive have the autonomously authority to defend the US against attack? Defending the US against enemies foreign and domestic is part of the oath of office, but I am not sure where the authority for immediate, autonomous action would come form.
The 2006 North Korean nuclear test was the detonation of a nuclear device conducted on October 9, 2006 by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. North Korea announced its intention to conduct a test on October 3, six days prior.[1] The blast is estimated to have had an explosive force of less than one kiloton, and some radioactive output was detected.[2][3] United States officials suggested the device may have been a nuclear explosive that misfired.[2] An anonymous official at the North Korean Embassy in Beijing told a South Korean newspaper that the explosive output was smaller than expected.[4] Due to the secretive nature of North Korea and small yield of the test, there remains some question as to whether it was an unusually small successful test, or a partially failed "fizzle" or dud.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_North_Korean_nuclear_test
In fact, the plans for administrating the country in the aftermath wasn't assigned to CENTCOM until roughly four months before the invasion. CENTCOM was told from the beginning that the State Dept. was going to draw up the plans, and then Rumsfeld took it back from State and foisted it on CENTCOM as they were immersed in finalizing all the loose ends on the war plans. So Phase IV (the occupation) wasn't even on the drawing board until Winter '02. Once we won the war, Bremer assumed power and proceeded to dismantle the only security apparatus left in the country - the Iraqi army - which, by the way, wanted nothing to do with fighting us on our way to Baghdad. This blunder, alone, put the occupation under an unimaginable burden to restore order among a group of people who have hated each other for centuries.
Once the terrorists started pouring in from Iran and Syria, it became painfully obvious that there was little we could do to stop them, since we didn't have enough troops to patrol the borders. So as Syria lifted a giant middle finger in our direction, and our troops were being told to bide their time in Fallujah, it was painfully obvious that we were in over our heads - not because it was inevitable - but because we weren't prepared in any way whatsoever to deal with the realities of throwing out a despotic government that was the only glue among avowed enemies. Whatever can be said about the dreadful, treasonous behavior of the media, they had no influence on Donald Rumsfeld, who was the architect of this short-sighted mess. We had every opportunity to do this right, and failed. The buck stops with President Bush because his loyalty to Rumsfeld blinded him from the obvious shortcomings of the war plan.
And frankly, deflecting responsibility is more typical of leftist Kool Aid drinkers than simply admitting the truth. Patriotism doesn't make excuses for weakness.
I hate to break it to you, but Bush doesn't intend to act on Iran. The situation is not going to be resolved until an international crisis occurs and an actual international coalition takes it to Syria/Saudi Arabia/Iran. There's no guarantee whatsoever we can destroy all of their facilities. Given our intelligence apparatus, we could be flying blind anyhow. So if these pre-emptive strikes do not, at the same time, decapitate the government, we're just pushing the clock back a few more years since technological know-how can't be "destroyed".
Add to that, we don't have the manpower to help Iran transition to democracy, and we're looking at a pretty toothless warplan. My view of the situation is that it will require anywhere between a half-million to 1,000,000 troops to set the Middle East straight and remove these threats. For the U.S. to go it alone, it would require a military draft. Since that's political suicide, it's going to necessitate renewed commitments from NATO to provide manpower. And that's not going to happen until Iran has a nuclear weapon aimed at Rome. I'm afraid we're in it for the long haul...
There is a difference between holding an opinion and knowing the future.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.