Posted on 11/21/2011 5:12:23 AM PST by SJackson
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has given Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak a clear warning: don’t attack Iran. Panetta
pointed to a U.S. analysis that a strike on Iran would set back its nuclear program, which Iran says is only for peaceful purposes, by one or two years at most. It would also have implications for U.S. forces in the region.
He added that “thirdly, there are going to be economic consequences to that, that could impact not just on our economy but the world economy.”
What to do, then, if a military strike would be both pointless and harmful?
“The United States feels strongly,” Panetta says, “that the way to deal with [the problem] is to work with our allies, to work with the international community to develop the sanctions and the diplomatic efforts that would further isolate Iran.”
Barak, for his part, doesn’t seem reassured by that. He said it would “probably” take no more than “three-quarters” of a year before
no one can do anything practically about [Iran’s nukes] because the Iranians are gradually, deliberately entering into what I call a zone of immunity, by widening the redundancy of their plan, making it spread over many more sites with many more hidden elements.
Barak also warned that “a nuclear Iran would have deep repercussions for the Middle East, prompting countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt to ‘turn nuclear’ and starting a countdown to putting nuclear materials in the hands of terrorists.”
Another who’s not impressed by the Obama administration’s Iran policy, which Panetta’s words can be assumed to reflect, is Illinois Republican Senator Mark Kirk. As he told FoxNews: “They are not taking any real action against the Central Bank of Iran or other parts of the nuclear program…and then telling everyone else that they shouldn’t do anything either.”
Kirk, who is sponsoring legislation to sanction Iran’s Central Bank, says the administration is
afraid of any instability and oil markets, and therefore wants to take no decisive action. They’ll give some pretty good speeches against Iran, but they will not take decisive economic action. That may be because they don’t want disruption in Western economies, worried about prospects for the campaign.
Certainly there’s nothing in Panetta’s words to cast doubt on that analysis. His warning to Barak amounts to saying: the West is militarily helpless before a threat like Iran’s nuclear program; the tooth fairy will take care of it.
Particularly inane is the rationale that attacking Iran would only set it back one or two years, which amounts to a new military doctrine of never attacking an opponent if he has a chance to recover from it. As noted by Jim Lacey, professor of strategic studies at the Marine Corps War College:
The most commonly used excuse for non-action…is that an American military strike would only cause the Iranians to redouble their efforts. Really? In any case, is there some rule against our blowing up their “redoubled” program a year or two from now? Is there not a point where even the Iranians will tire of seeing hundred-billion-dollar investments repeatedly turned into rubbish?
But the real insult to one’s intelligence is Panetta’s assertion that “work[ing] with…the international community…to develop the sanctions and the diplomatic efforts” is the solution—as if that hadn’t already been tried ad nauseam, with the “results” being the November 8 IAEA report clarifying that Iran is fast approaching its nuclear goal.
Here even Kirk’s belief in sanctioning Iran’s Central Bank is overblown. True, the U.S. administration is now reportedly considering sanctions on Iran’s petrochemical industry while making no mention of its far more significant Central Bank. But even if the administration aimed for sanctions on that body, it’s hardly likely it could get its allies—let alone Russia and China—to cooperate, and certainly not within the timeframe clarified by Barak.
As Benjamin Weinthal notes: “When it comes to sanctioning Iran, Germany has long been the weakest link in the chain. Yet France, Italy and the United Kingdom also refuse to sanction Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or its central bank.” That’s so even though “both entities are deeply immersed in Iran’s nuclear program and finance its terrorist proxies….”
But what to do when, “in 2010, as the US moved to tighten economic sanctions on Iran, European capitals merely paid lip service, while their bilateral trade with Iran flourished to over 25 billion Euros a year.” That’s a lot of Euros—especially for a continent on the brink of economic collapse.
Israeli hopes, then, that the latest IAEA report would prompt greater seriousness are already fading. The analogies with the 1930s are striking: the West’s ongoing pathological inability to cope with the danger; Jews as the immediate target, trying vainly to convince others that they’re but the canary in the coalmine. The difference, though, is that this time the Jews have a state and the ability to act.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com
URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/11/21/panetta-to-israel-don%e2%80%99t-touch-iran/
“The United States feels strongly,” Panetta says, “that the way to deal with [the problem] is to work with our allies, to work with the international community to develop the sanctions and the diplomatic efforts
Translation: this regime's "allies" and "international community" include China, Venezuela, North Korea, the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran.
We have seen how economic isolationism has worked so well with Castro in Cuba.
Iran already has a nuke or several. They are blackmailing U.S. and trying to stall Israel. Why else would we not attack?
So, we have forces in Iran ? Is that what Panetta is actually stating ?
I certainly hope that Israel told Panetta to piss up a rope.
In other words, do nothing!
Obama’s doing all he can to assure Iran gets nuclear weapons and has plenty of muslim fanatic states to share them with.
(Captured) American spies beg to differ w/Leon.
Pathetic, er ah Mr. P appointed by Obama to head the CIA....
Panetta’s a Communist. Always has been. Part of the team that has infiltrated the highest branches of government in order to bring us down. Any questions?
Since 1980, sanctions of one kind or another have been leveled against Iran... can anyone point to any kind of evidence these have affected Iran's behavior to any extent? The only application these knuckledraggers understand and respect is brute and overwhelming force.
That said... this "administration" can't be trusted to conduct any such operation to the required level to exact a desired result. The Israelis don't either, and at a point and time of Israel's choosing, it will act. The Israelis also likely believe Obama may act against them, so that would be part of the decision-making equation.
Hey pantyetta, do you really believe sanctions can work against a cult that uses no toilet paper, still supports honor killings, and heats with camel dung?
Why don’t you just STFU? JMHO of course.
I agree with the rights of sovereign nations, but Israel had better be willing to face the repercussions from the US people. An attack on Iran could have serious consequences to American troops in the region and American citizens. Israel had better understand that before, rather than after. The politics mean nothing in this; it is the real economic impact to America, its debt, its citizens, and the very real threat to our troops in the region.
LLS
>>>Israel, do what you must.
Yup, and know we are with you. If there is any fighting going on, I am in Israels corner. Period.
No ROE, Just do it.
“The United States feels strongly,” Panetta says, “that the way to deal with [the problem] is to work with our allies, to work with the international community to develop the sanctions and the diplomatic efforts that would further isolate Iran.”
That worked well with North Korea too. Wait, NK went ahead and got Nuke weapons and no one did anything about it. Wait, this was during the Clinton Admin. when Panetta was there too! I guess he just wants to be consistent. So, rogue nations getting nuke weapons make the region safer. We might as well start selling them on ebay and arm everyone.
The United States under the Presidents’ “leadership” will allow Israel to be obliterated and will do NOTHING to either stop it or to retaliate.
NY-29 got it right.....
This has been the MO of the democrats since Carter. Had Carter really attacked Iran for taking our Embassy and making the staff hostages, he may well have won the election against Reagan. I guess we should thank God he didn't.
Consider Clinton on the golf course refusing to take out Osama when he had the chance. The focus here was on his poll numbers, not doing the right thing.
So now the world is back to the tinderbox, once again with Iran, ready for a nuclear glow, but we'll do nothing to despoil the One’s poll numbers and economic non-policies.
Pathetic. An unbiased press would run with this story. Too bad we have none.
Israel would "touch" Iran only if it were life or death.
If Iran does in fact develop a nuclear weapon, they will hold the world hostage to their demands, very similar to N.Korea.
That's the better case scenario, worst case these pshycotic muzzies would use a device to wipe out Israel.
I put my money on the Israelis.
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.