There were a number of interesting developments today that are said to point towards a possible attack on Iran. It's worth taking a look at them and seeing where they lead:
Okay...now let's look at what's actually going on here.
The Iranians appear to have mostly overcome the damage to their nuclear weapons program caused by stuxnet and other sabotage, including some deliberate slow ups by the Russians building these facilities in order to jack the costs up and get more money out of the Mullahs for their new toys.
The November IAEA report, due out in a matter of days is pretty clear that the Iranians are proceeding apace in their race to nuclear weapons. The current sanctions haven't deterred them one bit. It also details how the Iranians got considerable technical help from the Russians, North Koreans, and the Infamous A.Q. Kahn of Pakistan.
My sources also tell me that the IAEA report clearly states for the first time that a number of the facilities, processes and materials Iran is working with have no possible peaceful applications. That's something you knew well over three years ago if you were reading this site.
The biggest problem is the ongoing dispersal,protection and concealment of Iran's nuclear facilities and stockpiles of material. The most liberal estimates are that in another 12 months or so, getting to them to take them out without massive damage and civilian casualties is going to be close to impossible.
The Israelis understand this very well.What they are essentially saying to the Obama Administration is that time is running out, and if you don't do something about this we certainly will.
The Israelis don't particularly need NATO's assistance( although it would certainly be helpful) , or even the Jericho 3. Israel's drones, pilots and nuclear subs can already get close enough to Iran to hit whatever they need to hit, and an Israeli raid on Iran would almost certainly be accompanied by the Saudis turning a blind eye to Israel flying over their territory for the purpose.
The indications are that the Israelis are fully capable of doing this themselves provided they're ruthless enough to do what it takes to make a thorough job of it. It would probably take multiple strikes, and Israel's inherent limitations would undoubtedly make things messy and might even involve tactical nukes, but the Iranian nuclear program could be crippled for some time.
That, however is not at all what the Obama Administration wants. This president doesn't want to have to choose between alienating all those new Islamist regimes he's so fond of by supporting Israel in a strike on a Muslim country, or alienating even more of the pro-Israel vote at home in an election year by not doing so.
President Obama's preferred scenario is to try and use the Israelis as leverage to try and get support from Russia and China for actual, punitive sanctions on Iran. The fact that they haven't worked yet and likely never would doesn't come into the equation for this president.
The pitch to the Russians and Chinese would go something like this: 'Look, there's only so much I can do with these psycho Jews just now. It's better we all act now like the adults in the room to solve this thing instead of letting it get out of hand.'
If that doesn't work, there are indeed signs that President Obama may be leaning reluctantly towards an Iran strike if he feels it's to his personal advantage. But if it happens, it will be one that definitely doesn't involve Israel, at least not openly.
The first signal was the departure of Robert Gates, the former Secretary of Defense and a long time Iran appeaser. Along with former Secretary of State Condi Rice, it was Gates who was instrumental in making sure that the Bush Administration kicked this can down the road as well as seeing to it that the Israelis didn't get any kind of green light for it either, back when Iran would have been a lot easier to deal with than they are now. The team of Gates and Rice even attempted to stop the Israelis from taking out Syria's North Korea-supplied reactor and budding nuclear weapons site. fortunately without success. Gates pulled exactly the same trick during his tenure in the Obama Administration on Iran, aided and abetted by Admiral William J. Fallon, then commander of CENTCOM.
The second sign is the coming removal of all US troops from Iraq, scheduled to be completed by the end of next month. For political reasons,(both American and Iraqi) the president is required to finish the draw down by year's end. But it has the small silver lining of removing a nearby target for retaliation and attack by Iran or its Shi'ite proxies within Iraq. True, many of those troops will be redeployed next door in Kuwait, but Kuwait is not controlled by Shi'ites and can be defended a lot easier than Iraq if necessary.
If President Obama does decide on military action against Iran, it will probably come within a few months in the run up to the election to get maximum electoral benefit for the president. It would most likely involve NATO forces, most likely lead by the US, and including the British and the French. It might also include token forces from Saudi Arabia and the Emirates to avoid the 'stigma' of attacking a Muslim country, similar to the coalition President George HW Bush used in the Gulf War for exactly the same reason.
The Israeli role in this scenario would be limited to intel, recon and keeping Iran's proxies in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria busy,so as not to complicate things with the Muslim world.
I must reiterate that this president is far more likely to simply delay things in hopes that yet another round of sanctions will have the desired effect, at least until he's safely out of office.
A lot depends on how the current elections go. and what President Obama sees as more beneficial to campaign on. Will he get more mileage as the president who brought our troops home from Iraq, or as the president who took out Iran's nukes? Will he garner more criticism from his base as President Warmonger or more from people complaining about him allowing Iran to go nuclear on his watch? Would it be better for him politically to take on Iran, or to let Israel do it?
One thing I'm certain of. As much as this president hates decisions,he will try to delay things as long as possible.
As things stand, my money is still on the IDF ending up doing the job.Israel no longer has the luxury of time.Neither do we,but it's a lot more obvious to the Israelis from where they sit.
No comments:
Post a Comment