Posted on 02/12/2009 9:29:25 AM PST by Jbny
David Sanger, writing in the New York Times, suggests there is “a new dynamic afoot, one that seems likely to become even more complicated” once the Israeli election is settled:
If the government that emerges is even more determined to end the Iranian nuclear program by any means necessary, Mr. Obama may find himself trying to negotiate with one of America’s most determined adversaries while restraining one of its closest allies.
(Excerpt) Read more at commentarymagazine.com ...
Israel has nuclear weapons but I have never heard them threaten to use them on Iran. What does "any means necessary" mean to the liberal MSM?
If you'd like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
When Bibi or Lieberman say that HAMAS needs to be destroyed - how is it possible, when they enjoy wide popular support in Gaza and are not going to fight an open war? To re-occupy the Gaza is not something Israel was ready to do. There is no allies there like US found in Iraq. From all ideas I ever saw, I like the one from a fellow freeper Marron - to annex a slice of territory after each attack - a reverse land-for-peace deal.
But nobody seriously discussing anything like that AFAIK.
About Iran. Tough talking can take you only so far. If US and Iraq won't allow fly over, how can they reach Iran? Do they have spy network on the ground capable of blowing up every important installation?
The way to deal with Iran was naval blockade with simultaneous sabotage of their single refinery, and helping the regime change. We did not do it, Israel can't do the blockade.
I'd like to be convinced that my pessimism here is wrong. I just don't see HOW Israel can stop Iran.
My position has been more or less the same as yours.
Iran isn’t Israel’s job, its ours.
Destroying their nuclear program will require hitting dozens of installations, maybe nearly a hundred, some of which are underground. This isn’t something a small group of intrepid Israeli jet pilots is going to be able to do, this requires a sustained air attack and many many sorties.
Who has airbases on all sides of Iran? Not Israel. We do. Between aircraft carriers, and bases in Iraq and Afghanistan and Qatar and Oman and on and on, we are the only ones who can launch that kind of attack.
As you mention, Israel would have to coordinate any attack of theirs with us at minimum. Letting Israel take the blame for the attack doesn’t buy us anything, because everyone including Iran will know we helped them or at minimum permitted it.
So Iran is going to attack us in reprisal whether we do it or Israel does it. And she has two means easily at her disposal; she has American troops just a few miles over the border in Iraq who can be attacked, and she can try to shut down the Persian Gulf. Keeping the Gulf open and keeping arab oil flowing is a tremendous job that only the US Navy can do. As we did the last time Iran tried to close the gulf, we’ll have to escort ships, fend off Iranian attack boats, and this time Iranian subs and shore-based missile batteries. That job will fall to us.
So the easiest way to bring Iran to its senses is as you mentioned, its what I call the nuclear option, and that is for the US to close the straits to Iranian traffic. All of her income is from oil exports, and she must import gasoline. Closing the straits will bring Iran to a crisis point within days.
Iran is forever threatening to close the gulf, but in actual fact we are the ones in a position to close it to Iran while keeping it open to the arabs. What we don’t have is the will to do it. Yet.
I'm not yet convinced that Obama is Iran's most determined adversary, and I'm not so sure he is Israel's closest ally. I think the writer is assuming something not in evidence.
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.