I love Spaghetti Westerns. What they lack in dialogue they make up for in action. Albeit, the 1966 classic "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly," is remembered for both action and dialogue, especially that unforgettable piece of advice, "When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk."
Confronted with the belligerent Iranian regime said to be just a "turn of the screw" away from attaining nuclear capability, Israel's leaders have responded with considerable verbal belligerence. Some people say they should heed that old Spaghetti Western adage. I don’t know if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is perturbed by our tough talk. However, Alain Rodier, director of research at the French Centre for Research on Intelligence, isn't impressed by our sabre-rattling. "Israel’s military threat against Iran is empty rhetoric; we’ve heard it several times before. Israeli leaders had planned to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities in November 2010 but they were deterred by the US. That doesn’t mean that we should not take seriously all these Israeli warnings. But we need to remain cautious with that kind of talk as both countries are engaged in a psychological war. An Iranian attack would be seen as a declaration of war and Israel would not hesitate to retaliate with overwhelming force. This is a typical 'balance of terror' situation where neither of the two countries would dare to strike first."
The Economist explained why there's a renewed rash of war-talk. " With China and Russia already saying that they will oppose any attempt to impose more punitive sanctions on Iran, there has also been fresh talk of resorting to military action, particularly from Israel." The author goes on to assess the outcome of translating words into action, "By throwing in every military thing at its disposal, Israel might slow by a few years Iran’s progress towards acquiring the bomb. But there would be no guarantee of that, and it would be a near-certainty that Iran would react with missile attacks of its own, and by its well-armed proxy forces: Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza." The paper goes on to explain the timing aspect." Why would Israel attack now when, for some of the reasons above, it has previously stayed its hand? There are several possible answers. The first is that Iran is rapidly moving centrifuges to its once-secret site at Fordow, buried deep inside a mountain and possibly invulnerable to attack by conventional weapons. Second, Syria’s internal chaos may take Iran’s most important regional ally out of the game. Third, the departure of American forces from Iraq removes both a focus for Iranian retaliation and a constraint on America. Fourth, if Messrs Netanyahu and Barak reckon that they need America’s military might to complete what they start, there may be no better combination to ensure that than a politically weak president whose Republican opponents have made unquestioning support for Israel a wedge issue a year before a presidential election."
Recently Secretary of Defence Panetta and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey sounded very much like Barak and Netanyahu. Elliot Abrams was surprised by Panetta's new rhetoric.
In an article published in the Council on Foreign Relations he pointed out that just two weeks ago the secretary of defence listed the risks involved in a military strike." I, like many others, "said Abrams, "wondered why it was wise for our secretary of defense to say this on the record and thereby reassure Tehran." It seems the secretary of defence has changed his mind.
In an interview given to CBS he said referring to Iran, "If they proceed and we get intelligence that they are proceeding with developing a nuclear weapon, then we will take whatever steps necessary to stop it."
“That's very strong language with very little wiggle room." Commented Abrams. "Perhaps Mr. Panetta or others in the administration came to realize the foolishness, indeed the danger, of having the Iranian regime believe it can pursue its goals unhindered by the United States. Perhaps they came to realize that any chance of a negotiated resolution with Iran was undermined if the ayatollahs came to believe there was no real military option ‘on the table.’ Perhaps this has been the administration’s bottom line all along, and an Iranian nuclear weapon is truly 'unacceptable' to the president. Whatever the explanation, this is the way our secretary of defense should be speaking in public about Iran."
A few months ago British journalist, author and Middle East affairs commentator, Patrick Seale considered the likelihood of an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear installations. “Most intelligence experts agree that Iran has not yet made a decision to build nuclear weapons.” He said, “A more likely Israeli motive is its concern that the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany -- the so-called P5+1 -- may accept an Iranian offer of renewed talks. Israel’s greatest fear is that the P5+1 will reach a compromise with Iran which would allow it to continue enriching uranium for civilian purposes. This might then lead in due course to the world agreeing to co-exist with a nuclear Iran. If that were to happen, Israel’s monopoly of nuclear weapons -- a key asset in maintaining its regional military supremacy – would be lost.”
William Luers, Thomas Pickering and Jim Walsh surveying the Republican party presidential contenders competitive sabre rattling warned in an article they wrote for Politico, “This competition among presidential hopefuls over who can make the most convincing threat against Iran increases the possibility — even the likelihood — that Washington will be left with no option but to initiate another war of choice — with all the unanticipated consequences for us and our unstable world.” Luers and Pickering, former US ambassadors suggested a diplomatic solution to the Iran dilemma, “A strong president can find a path to get close enough to begin to deal with that threatening and frightening enemy. Success at this better and more difficult option would rule out both war and an Iranian nuclear weapon.”
In an interview with the German newspaper Leipziger Volkszeitung's, Chancellor Angela Merkel said that diplomatic solutions to Iran's nuclear issue "have not been exhausted" and there is, thus, no justification for the US to speak of war.
Diplomatic solutions have been tried repeatedly. Whenever it seemed that the Iranians were prepared to talk it turned out to be a ruse devised to gain time.
Israel holds little hope for the success of diplomatic initiatives to convince Iran to forgo its nuclear aspirations. Likewise, sanctions without the full participation of Russia and China won't stop the Iranian nuclear programme.
Stephan M. Walt wrote about " The silent war with Iran" in a piece he published in Foreign Policy.
“It appears that we have gone beyond just talking about military action to actually engaging in it, albeit at a low level. In addition to waging cyberwar via Stuxnet, the United States and/or Israel appear to be engaged in covert efforts to blow up Iranian facilities and murder Iranian scientists. Earlier this week, the CIA lost a reconnaissance drone over Iranian territory (whether Iran shot it down or not is disputed). And just as I'd feared, this situation has led smart and normally sober people like Abdrew Sullivan and Roger Cohen to endorse this shadowy campaign, on the grounds that it is preferable to all-out war. “
About 100 Israeli ambassadors were called home over the Christmas holiday. They assembled in Jerusalem for a closed seminar on matters related to their work. Earlier this week Mossad director Tamir Pardo spoke with them about the Iran dilemma. Some of the ambassadors were persuaded by journalists to reveal details of Pardo’s briefing.The intelligence chief said that Israel was using various means to foil Iran's nuclear programme and would continue to do so, but if Iran actually obtained nuclear weapons, it would not mean the destruction of the State of Israel. When pressed to clarify the term “existential threat “ he said Iran definitely poses a threat to Israel, but intimated that he doesn't think a nuclear Iran is an existential threat to Israel. Predictably Matthew Kroenig's article in Foreign Policy Magazine – "Time to Attack Iran - Why a strike is the least bad option," provoked a lot of criticism. Kroenig a former special adviser on Iran policy to the Obama administration argued that, "The opponents of military action fail to appreciate the true danger that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose to U.S. interests in the Middle East and beyond. And their grim forecasts assume that the cure would be worse than the disease -- that is, that the consequences of a U.S. assault on Iran would be as bad as or worse than those of Iran achieving its nuclear ambitions. But that is a faulty assumption. The truth is that a military strike intended to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, if managed carefully, could spare the region and the world a very real threat and dramatically improve the long-term national security of the United States.
In March 2009 the Center for International Studies (CSIS) published a feasibility study on a possible Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear development facilities. The report written by Abdullah Toukan and Anthony H. Cordesman stated that a military strike is possible. They reasoned that the optimum attack route would be along the Syrian-Turkish border then over a small portion of Iraq then into Iran, and back along the same route. "However," the authors concluded," the number of aircraft required, refueling along the way and getting to the targets without being detected or intercepted would be extremely difficult, would involve a high degree of risk without any assurance of success." A few months after the CSIS report Steve Simon presented a more optimistic outlook in a memorandum he wrote for the Council on Foreign Relations "Israel is capable of carrying out these attacks unilaterally. Its F-16 and F-15 aircraft, equipped with conformal fuel tanks and refueled with 707-based and KC-130 tankers toward the beginning and end of their flight profiles, have the range to reach the target set, deliver their payloads in the face of Iranian air defenses, and return to their bases. The munitions necessary to penetrate the targets are currently in Israel’s inventory in sufficient numbers; they include Bomb Live Unit (BLU)-109 and BLU 113 bombs that carry two thousand and five thousand pounds, respectively, of high-energy explosives. These GPS-guided weapons are extremely accurate and can be lofted from attacking aircraft fifteen kilometers from their target, thereby reducing the attackers’ need to fly through air defenses.
Israel also has a laser-guided version of these bombs that is more accurate than the GPS variant and could deploy a special-operations laser designation unit to illuminate aim points as it is reported to have done in the attack on the al-Kibar facility in Syria.
These munitions could be expected to damage the targets severely. Natanz is the only one of the three likely targets that is largely underground, sheltered by up to twenty-three meters of soil and concrete. BLU-type bombs, used in a “burrowing” mode, however, could penetrate deeply enough to fragment the inner surface of the ceiling structures above the highly fragile centrifuge arrays and even precipitate the collapse of the entire structure. Burrowing requires that attacking aircraft deliver their second and third bombs into the cavity created by the first. GPS-guided munitions are accurate enough to do this in a little less than half of the time. The probability of successful burrowing increases with the number of shots. The use of three bombs per aim point would confer better than a 70 percent probability of success. (Laser-guided munitions are more capable of a successful burrow on the first try.) The uranium conversion facility in Isfahan and reactor at Arak are not buried and could be heavily damaged, or completely destroyed, relatively easily. This would be possible even if Iran managed to down a third of the Israeli strike package, a feat that would far exceed historical ratios of bomber losses by any country in any previous war.” Israeli journalist Yaakov Katz who writes on military affairs for Ynet and Jane’s Defence Weekly says Israel is concerned that recently purchased laser-guided bombs may carry defective fuses. The Israeli MoD is seeking clarifications from the United States to ensure that the bunker buster bombs in its arsenal are not carrying defective fuses that could cause their premature detonation. Assuming that the defective fuse problem will be resolved we greet the new year wondering when will the balloon go up.
Blogger Julian Borger added a possibility hitherto not considered. Maybe it would be better if we didn’t have to consider it. – “Israeli diplomats now talk about a range of possible "red lines", such as the reconfiguring of Iranian centrifuges to make HEU, the installation of a large number of cascades of new-generation centrifuges or the advanced testing of non-nuclear, high-explosive components of a nuclear warhead. In other words, the Israeli red lines have been moved back. They suggest that the Jewish state would only strike if Iran tried to break out of international nuclear safeguards to build a warhead. But that step may well never be taken. Most observers of the Iranian programme believe that it is aimed at building the capacity to break out quickly if the need arose, rather than actually building a bomb. That could be the uneasy limbo Israel has to learn to live with, no matter how many bunker-busters it has in its armoury.”
Rereading these lines I realise they lack Christmas cheer. It really is depressing stuff. To counterbalance it I’ll conclude with a snippet about water. Israel is two-thirds arid and to avoid further depleting its fresh water sources it has become a world leader in desalination and wastewater recycling. A new desalination plant at Ashdod will join four other desalination facilities that will provide by the end of 2013, 85% of the country's household water. In the coming years we will be able to return more water to aquifers and even sell water to our neighbours.
Happy New Year
Beni 29th of December, 2011.
No comments:
Post a Comment