'Israel will attack Iran on its own'

Jerusalem Post ^ | 12/21/2007 | Staff

[mojito]

I came back from a trip to Israel in November convinced that Israel would attack Iran," Bruce Riedel, a former CIA official and senior adviser to three US presidents, George W. Bush among them, told the American Newsweek magazine in an article published Friday.

Citing conversations he had in Israel with officials in Mossad and the Israeli defense establishment, Riedel concluded that "Israel is not going to allow its nuclear monopoly to be threatened."

While some US experts doubt Israel's ability to tackle Iran alone, David Albright, of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, was quoted by Newsweek as saying that although information on the exact location of Iran's nuclear facility is incomplete, Israel's air strike on an alleged Syrian nuclear facility on September 6, widely discussed in foreign media outlets, could be seen as a test run for any future strike on Iran's facilities, as well as a direct warning to Teheran.

Riedel told the magazine his impression that Israel would venture a strike on Iran on its own was formed before the publication of the joint US intelligence agencies' report, the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). "This [the NIE] makes it [a strike on Iran] even more likely," he said.

Since the publication of the NIE, which reversed a previous American assessment by concluding that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003, leaders worldwide have been adjusting their publicly stated positions on the Iranian nuclear issue.

Even inside the US, President Bush attempted some damage control by stating a day after the report's publication that "Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous and Iran will be dangerous."

In Israel, responses to the report ranged from subtle criticism of the report's conclusions to outright slamming of the US intelligence community's capabilities, so much so that on last Sunday's cabinet meeting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert instructed his ministers to refrain from commenting any further on the report.

In the international scene, Russia's decision to renew fuel shipments to Iran main nuclear facility at Bushehr was interpreted by many anlysts as stemming directly from the NIE's publication; another development possibly stemming from the report is Russia and China's hardened position on further sanctions against Teheran.

In Teheran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was quick to capitalize on the NIE, calling it an "Iranian victory" and demanding that the United States publicly apologize for its previous bellicose stance.

Uzi Arad, a former Mossad official and adviser to opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu, told Newsweek that on a recent trip to Moscow, a Russian general poked fun at the naiveté of the NIE, commenting that if the Iranians had halted weapons development in 2003 it was partly because they were satisfied with progress there and wanted to devote investment to harder parts of the nuclear equation, like enrichment.

"The irony is that the effect of this report may be self-negating - by itself it will accelerate Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons," Arad told the magazine.

[infowarrior]

I'd gladly be "expended" rather have any of them be forced to wear a Burka or Hijib, or even worse, be beaten with a "rule of thumb" stick.

My sentments, exactly... If it were apparent that these troglodytes would, indeed, inherit the earth, and force all others to submit to their barbarity, I would be willing to leave them only scorched earth...

the infowarrior

[Colorado Doug]

You can selectively interpret the Bible to predict anything...including what you'll be having for dinner tomorrow night.

Really? That's quite a claim but I like to be open minded. So, do tell, what am I having for dinner tomorrow night?

[peyton randolph]

I suppose cynics could do the same with the Constitution.

---

Sure. Just like Nostradamus etc. The point is that it gives me the creeps every time some yahoo interprets Event X as being foreshadowed by the Bible. I'm not knocking Biblical prophesy...just the propensity of some to be reading the religious tea leaves without a sense of perspective. There are loons across the political spectrum who see what isn't there. An example from the left were those who claimed the Bible foretold Reagan's presidency because each of his three names had six letters --- 666 - The Mark of the Beast. One can laugh but same absurdity at issue here when one sees X and suggests the Bible predicted it.

[mkjessup]

Nowhere did I say we should just wait it out. All I said was that it’s near-impossible for the Iranians to simply throw off the regime by themselves.

How can they be helped, and by whom? (that's not a rhetorical question, I'd like to hear your view on how the Iranian people could best be supported and motivated to overthrow the tyranny that runs their country.

These are different issues we’re talking about here....I’m all for dropping a bomb on Tehran to halt their nuke program. That’s different from talking about the nature of the Iranian people. The “little snakes grow up to be big snakes” is all I was commenting on....I wasn’t making a case for not bombing Iran.

My 'snake' analogy was not invoked on a whim. I refer to the children recruited into the Basiji brigades and used for battlefield fodder during the Iran-Iraq War. Those who survived became a power base for noneother than Ahmadinejad who was an instrumental figure in training those children to serve as human mine sweepers and 'martyrs' for 'allah' during that war (the children who didn't survive naturally aren't around to support him today), have you perhaps read an excellent article by Matthias Kuntzel? If not, it is worth the read:

http://www.matthiaskuentzel.de/contents/ahmadinejads-world

I'd like to believe that the Iranian people are more pro-American than we dare to hope, but when I read of Ahmadinejad announcing a 'Basiji Week' in the Fall of 2005 to celebrate his 'election', he got a response of an estimated 9 million Basiji brigade members who formed a human chain damn near 9000 kilometres long!

That's a lotta basiji, that's a lotta jihad.

I hope you're right and that the Iranian people CAN change the suicidal course their nation is on.

If not, it's going to get very ugly, very suddenly.

Merry Christmas to you and yours!

[Zechariah11]

The point is that it gives me the creeps every time some yahoo interprets Event X as being foreshadowed by the Bible. I'm not knocking Biblical prophesy...just the propensity of some to be reading the religious tea leaves without a sense of perspective. There are loons across the political spectrum who see what isn't there.

I don't think FreeRepublic is the proper venue to discuss anything about Scripture at all - eschatology, soteriology, or what have you. But, being one who loves to study it, I get a bit defensive at times.

[M. Espinola]

The Shi’ite jihadist enemy which Iran’s terrorist thugs arm, train and bankroll attacks Israelis, coupled with American, British and other Coalition troops in Iraq, therefore a joint military effort should have already been undertaken to remove the Iranian dictatorship.

[G8 Diplomat]

How can they be helped, and by whom?

They ARE motivated to overthrow the tyrrany, but just about every dictator in recent times has been overthrown not from within, but from military help or economic pressure from outside. The Soviet Union fell in the latter way, and Hitler, Mussolini, Napoleon, and Saddam, for example, have fallen the former. The Iraqis did not overthrow Saddam, the Germans did not overthrow Hitler, we pounded the crap out of their armies until they surrendered. Ataturk is the exception that comes to mind; he dissolved the Ottoman empire pretty much single-handedly. What they need is an Iranian Ataturk, or someone who can successfully assassinate both Ahmadinejad and Khamenei. If we went to war with Iran we would easily beat them, and Ahmadinejad knows it. The Iranian army is worthless, and it's hardly a match unless he's got nukes. Which is why we should bomb Iran now and pound the crap out of what army they have.

This is the article that talks about the Iranian youth and their views of the US: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-717362,00.html

Quote from article: "A poll conducted by a state-owned company in Tehran in February revealed that 70 per cent of Iranians had a favourable view of the US (which is thus more popular in Iran than in Britain, let alone in France and Germany)."

9 million basijji...Iran's population is around 80 million, there are plenty more decent Iranians out there. 11 million of them did not show up at the ballot box in 05, and Ahmadinejad only won by about 500,000 votes.

[mkjessup]

An example from the left were those who claimed the Bible foretold Reagan's presidency because each of his three names had six letters --- 666 - The Mark of the Beast. One can laugh but same absurdity at issue here when one sees X and suggests the Bible predicted it.

Funny you should mention that.

I recall a xerox'd primitive 'spam' (pre-Internet of course) that I received from somebody in January 1981 (right after Reagan's Inauguration) and it was quite interesting, it went like this:

1917

1926

1935

1944

1953

1962

1971

1980

Reagan was born in 1911.

In 1917, he was 6 years old.

In 1926, he was 15 years old. (1 + 5 = 6)

In 1935, he was 24 years old. (2 + 4 = 6)

In 1944, he was 33 years old. (3 + 3 = 6)

In 1953, he was 42 years old. (4 + 2 = 6)

In 1962, he was 51 years old. (5 + 1 = 6)

In 1971, he was 60 years old. (6 + 0 = 6)

In 1980, he was 69 years old. (6 + 9 = 15, 1 + 5 = 6)

Each of the digits of the above years, when added together, equal '18', which breaks down to '6 + 6 + 6'.

Those type of years occur -only- *8* times after Reagan was born in 1911, and after 1980 (the year Reagan was elected) that 'type' of year ceases to occur for the rest of the 20th Century.

The 'argument' that was made by whatever number cruncher that came up with this, was that it pointed to the high probability that Ronald Wilson Reagan was indeed, a potential candidate to be the Antichrist of Biblical prophecy. And more than a few people took it quite seriously, because you can't refute numbers.

Now you could say "that applies to ANYBODY born in 1911", and you would be right. But how many people born in 1911 went on to become the President of the United States?

Only one. Ronald Reagan.

And believe you me, after John Hinckley shot President Reagan, a whole lotta evangelicals (at least the ones who had received this xerox'd chain letter) were holding their breath to see if Reagan might actually die, then be miraculously brought back to life, as described in Revelation 13:3, "I saw one of his heads as if it had been slain, and his fatal wound was healed. And the whole earth was amazed and followed after the beast..."

As it turned out, the Beast wouldn't enter the White House until Inauguration Day, January 1993.

And now she's trying to do it again. ;)

[mkjessup]

I hope those numbers of America-loving Iranians stay at those high approval levels if we have to turn part of their country into a parking lot.

[Shamrock-DW]

The authors of the NIE should be handled as in Vince Flynn's novel "Term Limits". 

[Marysecretary]

Israel wants to protect its nuclear monopoly? Good grief, how about they’re trying to save their country from despots in Iran. I can’t believe this crap. (Actually, I can...)

[Marysecretary]

Actually, most of Iran/Iranians are pro-western and not anti-American. We should be helping them overthrow that regime.

[Marysecretary]

I agree with you 100%.

[G8 Diplomat]

The authors of the NIE should be handled as in Vince Flynn's novel "Term Limits".

So should Congress.

[Marysecretary]

Why not? They do have a religion forum here. Makes the place more interesting, actually.

[Marysecretary]

I agree. I am disappointed with our administration, including mostly Condi Rice, and the way they treat Israel and try to make her give up her land. Not good.

[Zechariah11]

Mary,

I'll respond via Freepmail.

[cookcounty]

"You can selectively interpret the Bible to predict anything...including what you'll be having for dinner tomorrow night.

OK, you're on. What am I having for dinner tomorrow night? Please supply multiple biblical references.

[CowboyConservative]

We actually have no way to eliminate their ability to obtain anything. After the fall or the Soviet block alot of ordinance including nuclear materials fell into the hands of the black market. US intelligence has known that for some time. We can only hope they don’t develope the technology to put any of those materials to use. Sanctions can only try to stop countries like Iran from implementing not from obtaining. That is a scary thought. Before we came along years ago none of the people of these countries were much more advanced than the camels they were riding we developed their oil production everything. They would be nothing if it had not been for the good old (evil) United States. I remember the first Gulf war with Irac when Suddam was firing Russian scud missiles at Israel we watched it on tv, what constitutes a weapon of mass destruction? Of course to discredit Bush they say nothing was found but how many years did Irac have to move those weapons? And how many times have we heard the truth? Israel has no liberals or a liberal media to whitewash what we hear. If they want to blow Iran off the face of the earth they have my support. Sounds like a darn good plan to me.

[Zechariah11]

Mary,
I believe Christians are way too presumptuous and insensitive today to polite conversation. There is a time and place to share the Gospel to unbelievers but this forum is not it.

This is a very mixed multitude of hardened sinners, committed believers, u Jews, Catholics, Ayn Rand atheists, etc. Our point of contact with them is John 3:16 Instead, contrary to our Lord’s injunction, we share the precious Scriptural pearls of eschatology — and then stand amazed that they trounce them underfoot and make the Word look silly.
Our message to the unbeliever should be, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved” Not that the nations of the Gog-Magog confederacy of Ezekiel 38 are in place. That may be true but it is utterly silly to throw that out. Perhaps, in other circumstances, when the hearer has shown a receptiveness and openness to the things of God and the Spirit inclines us to share, then fine. Not until then. It is presumptuous and disobedience to the Word.

Even in sharing the Gospel, propriety and leading are required. I remember Dr. J. Vernon McGee saying that on one occasion when he had to hitch-hike across the country in his days of attending seminary, a fellow picked him up.
The two talked about everything but the Gospel, yet McGee was anxious to share with him. McGee prayed silently for a couple of hours until the Spirit provided the leading to present the salvation message. And McGee was neither shy nor lacking for words.

Religion is discussed on that section of the forum. Believe me, the vast majority (Catholics and Reformed Presbyterian)that frequent there are VIRULENTLY hostile to dispensational truth. They take carnal delight in the mocking of our Lord’s return.