Posted on 01/02/2007 12:59:25 PM PST by SmithL
Warning that the war in Lebanon impaired Israel's level of deterrence, the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) at Tel Aviv University published its annual Middle East Strategic Balance on Tuesday with one major conclusion: "Without military action, an Iranian nuclear bomb is only a matter of time."
According to the book, whose conclusion concerning Iran was first reported exclusively in The Jerusalem Post, was released to the press on Tuesday. Said to be a "bible" for military analysts, the book claims that the war in Lebanon this past summer against Hizbullah severely damaged Israel's level of deterrence and revealed a number of basic "weaknesses and flaws in the IDF and the decision-making echelon in the Israeli government."
Concerning Iran, Maj.-Gen. (res.) Giora Eiland - a member of the INSS, formerly known as the Jaffee Center of Strategic Studies - said that if the US or Israel wanted to stop the Islamic Regime's nuclear technological advances, it "should have attacked the nuclear facilities in Iran yesterday, or tomorrow at the latest." A former head of the National Security Council, Eiland said that if Israel did decide to attack Iran, it would need to coordinate the action with the US.
A lack of diplomatic movement on the Palestinian front alongside Iran's continued efforts to obtain nuclear weapons has weakened Israel's strategic standing in the Middle East, claims the book, which was written by INSS head Zvi Shtauber and Yiftah Shapir.
"This year was marked by Israel not finding a solution to the Palestinian issue, not stopping Iran, and the failure in the world's war against terrorism," said Shtauber, a retired brigadier general and Israel's former ambassador to the United Kingdom, during a press conference in Tel Aviv on Tuesday.
"The reality did not develop like we had hoped it would," Shtauber said, adding that the United States' failure to stabilize Iraq had also contributed to the dangerous situation brewing in the Middle East.
On the Lebanese front, the report claims that UN Security Council Resolution 1701 has not prevented the rearmament of Hizbullah, which is currently working to topple the government of Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora. The book predicts that quiet will prevail along the northern border in the near future, but that the war this past summer has strengthened Israel's enemies and has been viewed as a total failure for Israel.
"Arab states now realize that Israel's strength is limited," said Eiland, a member of the INSS, adding that as a result, these countries might be tempted to take military action that they would never even have considered half-a-year ago.
Regarding Syria, the book claims that while President Bashar Assad is "weak," and it is doubtful that he can "deliver the goods," Israel should still closely examine and consider peace overtures from Damascus.
"Syria is examining its options in order to improve its strategic position," Shtauber said. "One of those ways is by opening negotiations with Israel."
According to the report, Hamas is currently interested in quiet with Israel as part of an effort to stabilize its regime in the Palestinian Authority. But, the report claimed, Hamas has been finding it difficult to rein in splinter Palestinian terror groups that could cause an eruption in violence against Israel.
The report also found that Saudi Arabia was the top arms procurer in the Middle East, with arms deliveries of $19 billion between 2001 and 2004. Israel did not sign any major deals in 2006, the report found, except for the purchase of two new Dolphin-class submarines from Germany, which was first reported in the Post.
Egypt, which alongside Israel is also the recipient of major US military aid, does not, the report stated, appear to be on the verge of new combat aircraft. Major current deals for the Egyptian Navy include $565 million for the acquisition of three fast missile patrol craft under development in the US.
Sure seems I've heard that before somewhere.
High Volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel. or WOT [War on Terror]
----------------------------
Thanks to Appeaser Foolmert the Corrupt and the other corrupt idiots in his government.
On the Lebanese front, the report claims that UN Security Council Resolution 1701 has not prevented the rearmament of Hizbullah....
Duh!! Who above age 3 1/2 thought that the UN could, would or even wanted to do so?
Israel needs to rely upon 2 things: itself and G-d, and not necessarily in that order...but first Foolmert and his corrupt Erev Rav administration must go. They cannot even recognize that Israel faces some very serious problems, let alone do anything about it. Oh, and forcibly removing more Jews from legally-acquired land owned by our ancestors is not the answer to any of Israel's problems.
Is that ring around the collar I see?
There will be no US military action against Iran, there is no political will for it.
There will be no US military action against Iran, there is no political will for it because of the war against Iraq.
There MUST be a follow-up, however.
The Iranians are correct in that they can quickly reconstitute their nuclear program even if it severely punished.
What WILL stop them is if in addition to destroying their facilities and reducing the Iranian military and RG, Iran itself it partitioned. Only this will deny them the resources and money to rebuild.
If it is just a bombing attack, it will fail, and they will be secure in rebuilding their program. Any delay will be unimportant, and they will have their nukes.
Israel had two problems with Hizbollah this summer.
1) CNN
2) A leftist attorney for a leader.
This summer was Israel's time to push the Hezzies back to Iran and stop their troops at the Syrian border. They should have done this and warned both Syria and Iran that they are flirting with destruction.
Then Israel should have cleared out Gaza.
Israel cannot afford to seek peace with the animals who want them destroyed. They have to hit them hard to make them understand that Israel will survive as a nation.
Iran is a country significantly larger than Iraq, with significantly smaller minorities, and 68 million people who will be mad as hornets and full of nationalistic as well as religious fervor. How do you propose to "partition" such a land, and who do you think is going to do it?
Good questions. There are four parts of Iran that a natural choices for partition. The peoples who live there are far closer to the people in adjacent nations than they are to Persia and Persians. They are also second-class citizens kept from political power and economic prosperity in Iran.
The first group are the Iranian Kurds. Their natural attraction to Iraqi Kurdistan is enormous, and once such a partition and unification into greater Kurdistan had been made, the Kurdish Peshmurga and perhaps the Iraqi army would gladly defend their enlarged homeland.
Ironically, this could be too much momentum as a separate nation for them to remain in Iraq. However, the next partition would more than make up for that.
Iranian Khuzestan, in the southwest, is where most of Iran's oil is located. But it is ethnically Arab, not Indo-European, and they are very abused by the Persians. It would be very natural for them to join with Arabic Iraq, and the Iraqi military is quite capable already.
Baluchistan, in the southeast, is a divided region, with its other half in Pakistan. It is a resource wealthy, and restive, area and removing it from Iran and giving it to Pakistan would be most desirable and the Pakistanis would gladly accept and defend it.
The last region is the weakest. That is the Iranian Azeri regions, that would be joined with Azerbaijan. This is the one country that would need a large element of US forces for an extended time, to protect them.
But all this being said, that is why in saying that Iran's nuclear program must be destroyed, it is also very important to reduce their military and Revolutionary Guard.
I could also point out that of Iran's population of 68M, only half are Persian. Out of that 34M, 17M are male, but only 8M are militarily useful. However, they owe no loyalty to their government, nor to the hated minorities of Iran. They are also mostly young and would make poor conscripts.
As long as Persia itself was not invaded, our three divisions could systematically take each partitioned area, with air power smashing the Iranian military and RG. Then we turn each region over to its protector army, each of which should by then be far stronger than the remaining Iranian forces.
Since Baluchistan is almost a no-go area for the Iranians already, while distracted the Pakistan army might advance from its side with minimal US support needed.
Sadly, I think that not only is the title true, but it will have to be one particular kind of military action: A sustained bombing campaign that destroys their entire military. Then we find out if there's really support for a revolution.
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.