U.S. ramps up warnings on Iran strike risks, says strike may ‘consume the Mideast’ in conflict

Al arabiya ^ | Monday, 05 December 2011 | Phil Stewart and Mark Hosenball

[indpndtguy]

The United States has pointedly ramped up its public warnings over the last few weeks about the risks of military action against Iran, accompanied by private words of caution to Israel, which sees Tehran’s nuclear push as a direct threat.

But so far, at least, comments by U.S. and Israeli officials suggest that Washington's private lobbying has yet to convince Israeli hard-liners and even some moderates that alternatives, like sanctions and diplomatic pressure, will ultimately succeed in curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

It is unclear whether the differing views are any indication about whether Israel might be moving closer to a go-it-alone military strike, an option Tel Aviv has ruled out for the moment. Indeed, that may ultimately not be the case.

Rhetoric has periodically escalated over the years, often bolstering pushes - like the present one - for tougher sanctions against Iran. Making the right decision

But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in a speech on Sunday widely seen within Israel as hinting about policy on Iran, spoke about making “the right decision at the right moment,” even when allies object.

A nuclear-armed Iran, Netanyahu has said, is an existential threat to Israel.

Netanyahu’s comments came on the heels of U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s strongest comments yet explaining America’s concerns about a military strike on Iran.

Panetta said it risked “an escalation” that could “consume the Middle East in confrontation and conflict that we would regret.” It could also hobble the fragile U.S. and European economies and might do little to actually stop Iran from getting an atomic weapon - a goal Tehran denies having.

Iran says its uranium enrichment is for peaceful purposes.

Panetta, citing conversations with his “Israeli friends,” said an attack would only set back Iran’s nuclear program by one to two years at best. He also warned about blowback to U.S. forces in the region.

“The United States would obviously be blamed and we could possibly be the target of retaliation from Iran, striking our ships, striking our military bases,” Panetta told a forum in Washington on Friday.

Panetta privately outlined U.S. concerns in talks with Israel's Defense Minister Ehud Barak in Canada last month, including the impact a strike would have on the world economy.

Analysts say Tehran could retaliate by closing the Strait of Hormuz, the waterway where about 40 percent of all traded oil passes. Global meltdown

President Barack Obama, who is gearing up for a re-election battle next year, has had more trouble than his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, in winning Israeli trust.

Bruce Riedel, a former adviser to the Obama administration and former senior CIA expert on the Middle East, said Washington was deeply wary of being dragged into a conflict that, from its perspective, might be unnecessary.

“Obama knows a strike on Iran by Israel will create a regional war and a global economic meltdown that America will have to clean up,” Riedel said.

“And he knows Israel - with its own considerable nuclear arsenal - does not face an existential threat from a nuclear Iran.”

But, even considering likely retaliation on U.S. forces, the top U.S. military officer told Reuters in an interview this week he did not know whether the Jewish state would even give the United States notice ahead of time if it decided to act.

General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also suggested there was a gap in perspective between Israel and the United States, which sees sanctions and diplomatic pressure as the right path to take on Iran.

“I’m not sure the Israelis share our assessment of that. And because they don’t and because to them this is an existential threat, I think probably that it’s fair to say that our expectations are different right now,” Dempsey said..

Iran is facing another wave of sanctions following a report last month by the U.N. nuclear watchdog which said Tehran appeared to have worked on designing an atom bomb and may still be pursuing secret research to that end.

Barak said on Thursday an Israeli attack on Iran was not imminent. But, asked about Dempsey’s comments to Reuters, Barak said Israel “greatly respects” the United States.

“But one must remember that ultimately, Israel is a sovereign nation and the Israeli government, defense forces and security services - not others - are responsible for Israel's security, future and existence,” Barak said.

Barak, in a radio interview, said Israel would be very glad if sanctions and diplomacy brought the Iranian leadership to a clear decision to abandon its nuclear military program.

But, “unfortunately, I think that is not going to happen,” he said.

[indpndtguy]

It looks like Bibi will attack Iran. Oil will go ballistic, and so will gold?

[Travis McGee]

I wonder if these same leaders and pundits are privately asking who is causing all of these high-order blasts at Iranian strategic sites?

Do they even know? Is it a new, undetectable weapon being used by the IDF? A possible game changer, that the Israelis are willing to use it in a deniable way?

I think that is the backdrop behind all of this frantic diplomacy.

The game is already on.

[SamuraiScot]

Tehran appeared to have worked on designing an atom bomb and may still be pursuing secret research to that end.

Gosh, ya think?

Gotta respect some people's ability to keep a straight face.

[Manic_Episode]

Inevitable. Unavoidable. Set in stone.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

"Israeli officials suggest that Washington's private lobbying has yet to convince Israeli hard-liners and even some moderates that alternatives, like sanctions and diplomatic pressure, will ultimately succeed in curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions."

Obama's foreign policy is 1) totally incompetent, 2) run by complete naifs, 3) or nefarious and seeks a global islamic caliphate.

There really are no other choices. The loss of the ME to hard-core islamists on Obama's watch suggests #3.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Inevitable. Unavoidable. Set in stone.

I don't know if I'd go that far, but clearly it is trending thatta way and the current U.S. regime is not very helpful.

[Alas Babylon!]

OK, so how is allowing the crazy Mullahs in Iran to have access to nuclear weapons NOT going to consume the Middle East in conflict?

I mean, the radiation alone...

Sometimes you’re stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Doing nothing is an action of it’s own, that WILL result in Immams with atomic bombs.

[I Shall Endure]

“Is it a new, undetectable weapon being used by the IDF?”

The US has tested a high-power airborn laser system....

[Travis McGee]

CW2 Ping

“Obama knows a strike on Iran by Israel will create a regional war and a global economic meltdown that America will have to clean up,” Riedel said.

Since any global economic meltdown is pretty sure to cause an "interesting" cascade of social meltdown in the USA, I'm pinging the CW2 list.

This means there are now two imminent disasters ready to trigger a "global economic meltdown," the Middle East and the European Monetary Union/Euro crisis.

I wonder if some synergy between the two will precipitate some even greater risk? Like two hurricanes colliding.

[Travis McGee]

I wonder if it fits into that ginormous stealth drone that “strayed” from A-stan to Iran and crashed?

Maybe we’ll be treated to some pilotless U2/Gary Powers scenario, with the Iranians pulling out the laser?

Or are those lasers (or their power requirements) just still to big and heavy to fit into any drone? Last I heard, they took up a pretty big cargo jet or so.

[Lurker]

I’m wondering if the israelis have a working Rod From God or two up there.

[sanjuanbob]

Maybe Obama should consider cancelling his “holiday” vacation and stay home. Too much happening to abandon the country for his own selfish ideals.

[calex59]

I wonder if these same leaders and pundits are privately asking who is causing all of these high-order blasts at Iranian strategic sites?

How many blasts have their been. I am only aware of one. Have their been more?

[Hugin]

The DC establishement wants Iran to get a nuke, so they can take military action of the table. The rest is just stalling to let it happen.

[Stonewall Jackson]

I know of at least two. There was the big one at the missile facility and then another one last week in Ifsahan where their primary uranium enrichment facility is located.

[Buckeye McFrog]

and when you boil through all of the crapola, the argument Obama has made against the strike to the Israelis basically comes down to “it will push gasoline to fifteen bucks a gallon and cost me my re-election”.

[calex59]

Oops, wrong there. How many blasts have their there been, sorry about that.

[Gen.Blather]

“Do they even know? Is it a new, undetectable weapon being used by the IDF?”

Of the two big explosions one killed a general and one occurred during the time-frame the Ayatollah was supposed to visit. Neither of the explosion locations would significantly slow down the nuclear bomb project. Given the dangers of carrying out strikes on foreign territory this tells us that it is not the Israelis or any western powers trying to slow down the bomb project. These hits were caused by homegrown revolutionaries. Now, it’s almost certain that money and logistics were provided by outsiders. It is really difficult for revolutionaries to assemble the components of a significant bomb without outside help. But the placement of those bombs had to be people who worked at or had access to those locations. Presumably, important atomic bomb locations would have better security; that being the reason those locations were not bombed.

[GOPJ]

I wonder if these same leaders and pundits are privately asking who is causing all of these high-order blasts at Iranian strategic sites?

Do they even know? Is it a new, undetectable weapon being used by the IDF? A possible game changer, that the Israelis are willing to use it in a deniable way?

Israel needs to keep her secrets - and yeah you're right Travis - the game is on...

[DoughtyOne]

Israel attacks, might involve the Middle-East in a regional conflict.

Iran gets nuclear weapons..., yawn.

What is wrong with this picture?

If Iran gets nukes, regions outside of the Middle-East will be targets in short order. No concern there...