|
Israeli Journos Warn About Netanyahoo Lunacy Towards Iran
The "Israel will bomb Iran" meme has been used so often that it doesn make much sense to take it serious anymore.
So why even discuss when it, as now, comes up again?
The difference is that the old campaign, via IDF jail guard Goldberg in The Atlantic and others in U.S. venues, was supposed to influence the U.S. to do the dirty work.
The new version of the meme is coming through major commentators in the Israeli press and its purpose seems is to publicly warn Israelis about some lunacy Netanyahoo and his defense minister Barak are seemingly committed to.
Alex Fishman wrote about it in an OpEd in Yediot Aharonot/Ynetnews on the 12th, Amin Oren on the 14th in Haaretz, colomnist Sefi Rachlevsky on the 17th also in Haaretz. And now teasered on page one of the weekend edition of of the Hebrew dead tree version of Yediot Aharonot the "the best-connected, most influential journalist in Israel" Nahum Barnea (partly translated here, here and here) issues the same warnings.
All these well know writers revolve their pieces around three issues:
First: The Shalit prisoner deal was done to "clean up" for the next big issue.
Second: Recently former Israel Defense Forces chief of staff Gabi Ashkenazi, Shin Bet security service head Yuval Diskin, Mossad head Meir Dagan and former head of the Israeli air force Amos Yadlin were replaced. The new people in these jobs are more willing to defer to the politicians. As Nahim Barnea sets it:
But as far as is known, on the Iranian issue, their view matches that of their predecessors: all four, it seems, rule out a military strike at this time. The difference is in their willingness to fight [for their viewpoint]: the previous directors arrived at meetings after years of success, each in their organization, enjoying strong public standing. Toward the politicians they projected determination and self-confidence. The new ones are less well known, less emphatic, less consolidated.
Third: There are serious signals that Netanyahoo and Barak will go for it shortly without any regard of the consequences.
All these writers warn that this is a dangerous road ahead and ask the new heads of those agencies and the public to interfere.
This all may, like before, come down to nothing. But when four well know Israeli journalists from different political quarters warn the Israeli public of the same issue something is happening beyond the usual rumor mill stuff.
@Lysander:
Remember back in 2005/6, when Cheney, et al, were contemplating strikes on Iran?
Both Richard Clarke and Phil Giraldi came out and said that any strike on Iran would pretty much require tactical nuclear weapons.
Do you remember that the US shipped a load of those bunker busters to Israel — when was it? — last month, or so?
If those bombs get used, then it will be the same as if the US dropped them itself. US military planners doubtlessly know that.
=====================================================================================
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2010/08/05/any-attack-on-iran-would-not-end-well.html
“Any attack on Iran would not end well”
Gwynne Dyer
“The U.S. could “win” by dropping hundreds of nuclear weapons on Iran’s military bases, nuclear facilities and industrial centers (i.e. cities) and killing 5 million to 10 million people, but short of that, nothing works. On this, we have the word of Richard Clarke, counterterrorism adviser in the White House under three administrations.”
…
“There’s nothing the U.S. can do to Iran, short of nuking the place, that would force Tehran to kneel and beg for mercy. It can bomb Iran’s nuclear sites and military installations to its heart’s content, but everything it destroys can be rebuilt in a few years.”
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/10/0081208
The Next War
Daniel Ellsberg
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040801082_pf.html
U.S. Is Studying Military Strike Options on Iran
By Peter Baker, Dafna Linzer and Thomas E. Ricks
“Pentagon planners are studying how to penetrate eight-foot-deep targets and are contemplating tactical nuclear devices.”
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/04/17/060417fa_fact
The Iran Plans
by Seymour M. Hersh
“One of the military’s initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites….
There is a Cold War precedent for targeting deep underground bunkers with nuclear weapons….
A former high-level Defense Department official told me that, in his view, even limited bombing would allow the U.S. to “go in there and do enough damage to slow down the nuclear infrastructure—it’s feasible.”….
But those who are familiar with the Soviet bunker, according to the former senior intelligence official, “say ‘No way.’ You’ve got to know what’s underneath—to know which ventilator feeds people, or diesel generators, or which are false. And there’s a lot that we don’t know.” The lack of reliable intelligence leaves military planners, given the goal of totally destroying the sites, little choice but to consider the use of tactical nuclear weapons. “Every other option, in the view of the nuclear weaponeers, would leave a gap,” the former senior intelligence official said. “ ‘Decisive’ is the key word of the Air Force’s planning. It’s a tough decision. But we made it in Japan.””
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/article/2005/aug/01/00027/
Deep Background
In Case of Emergeny, Nuke Iran
By Philip Giraldi
“The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States.”
And from the cheerleading side:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/opinion/18iht-edmorris.1.14607303.html
Using bombs to stave off war
By Benny Morris
“Israel will almost surely attack Iran’s nuclear sites in the next four to seven months – and the leaders in Washington and even Tehran should hope that the attack will be successful enough to cause at least a significant delay in the Iranian production schedule, if not complete destruction, of that country’s nuclear program. Because if the attack fails, the Middle East will almost certainly face a nuclear war – either through a subsequent pre-emptive Israeli nuclear strike or a nuclear exchange shortly after Iran gets the bomb.
…should Israel’s conventional assault fail to significantly harm or stall the Iranian program, a ratcheting up of the Iranian-Israeli conflict to a nuclear level will most likely follow….”
http://csis.org/publication/options-dealing-iran%E2%80%99-nuclear-program
Options in Dealing with Iran’s Nuclear Program
By Anthony H. Cordesman, Abdullah Toukan
“Another scenario is using these warheads as a substitute for conventional weapons to attack deeply buried nuclear facilities in
Iran. Some believe that nuclear weapons are the only weapons that can destroy targets deep underground or in tunnels.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/01/07/us-iran-nuclear-israel-idUSL0675940520070107
Israel has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons, Britain’s Sunday Times newspaper said.
Reuters, Staff Article
Posted by: china_hand | Oct 31 2011 4:12 utc | 23
|
