Salahadin
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2009
- Messages
- 479
- Reaction score
- 0
TEL AVIV: When he first got word of Israels sneak attack on the Iraqi atomic reactor in 1981, US president Ronald Reagan privately shrugged it off, telling his national security adviser: Boys will be boys!
Would Barack Obama be so sanguine if todays Israelis made good on years of threats and bombed Irans nuclear facilities, yanking the United States into an unprecedented Middle East eruption that could dash his goal of easing regional tensions through revived and redoubled US outreach? For that matter, would Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu readily take on Iran alone, given his countrys limited firepower and the risk of stirring up a backlash against the Jewish state among war-weary, budget-strapped Americans?
Obama is no Reagan. And many experts believe the two allies are now so enmeshed in strategic ties with dialogue at the highest level of government and military that complete Israeli autonomy on a major issue like Iran is notional only. So while no one questions Israels willingness to attack should it deem US-led talks on curbing Iranian uranium enrichment a dead end, such strikes would almost certainly entail at least last-minute coordination with Washington. Israel would want to ensure that its jets would not be shot down by accident if overflying US-occupied Iraq, and to give Americans in the Gulf forewarning of possible Iranian reprisals.
Whether or not Israel got the green light from Washington to attack Iran is almost immaterial, as everybody in the region would believe that the US was complicit, said Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. One US diplomat envisaged Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak telephoning Pentagon chief Robert Gates, unannounced, to give a heads-up and explain once the mission were under way. Gates and the US military brass have voiced distaste for pre-emptive strikes on Iran, which says its uranium enrichment is for legitimate electricity production, not weapons. But their public comments have acknowledged that Israel could break rank.
I do not doubt that Israel will do what it thinks it needs to do, regardless of whether the US approves, said Mark Fitzpatrick, non-profileration expert at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. Israel would seek forgiveness, not permission. A retired Israeli general who advises the government on strategic issues suggested there was a tacit synchronicity in recent messages about Iran from Israel and the United States: The Israeli threat adds urgency to Obamas calls for diplomatic engagement, and should Israel take things into its hands, the Americans retain wriggle room, some deniability.
Israels bombing in 2007 of what the CIA described as a North Korean-built reactor in Syria may provide a precedent. According to a source familiar with the operation, Israel carried out the sortie alone, but only after letting the Americans know that something like this could happen. Its the difference between informing, and seeking consent.
It was the United States which, a year later, published the allegations about the bombed site, pitting its clout as a superpower against Syrian denials. Israel, which has never discussed the attack, was spared the burden of proving its case. As both Obama and Netanyahu head new governments, the Israeli former general said any joint strategy would go unformed at least until the leaders held their first summit on May 18.
Theres a sense that no decision has been made on either side, he said. My impression is that the current American statements are for the record, to convince the international community about the seriousness of the Obama administrations efforts to talk Tehran into a solution.Regardless of Obamas eventual stance, it would be severely tested should US interests be threatened say, with Iran answering an Israeli bombing by goading Shias in Iraq to stoke the embers of their insurgency, or by choking off oil exports. Whatever temporary sense of solidarity with Israel that ensued would be through gritted teeth, said Fitzpatrick, a former US State Department official.
Then again, drawing in the United States, with its superior air power, could serve Israels endgame of putting paid to Irans nuclear facilities. Most analysts think Israels warplanes might set back Irans plans by a few years at best and could never erase the knowledge of Irans atomic scientists. After reacting to the 1981 Iraq strike by saying according to then-National Security Adviser Richard Allen You know what, Dick? Boys will be boys!, Reagan rapped Israel by holding up a shipment of F-16 jets. reuters
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
Would Barack Obama be so sanguine if todays Israelis made good on years of threats and bombed Irans nuclear facilities, yanking the United States into an unprecedented Middle East eruption that could dash his goal of easing regional tensions through revived and redoubled US outreach? For that matter, would Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu readily take on Iran alone, given his countrys limited firepower and the risk of stirring up a backlash against the Jewish state among war-weary, budget-strapped Americans?
Obama is no Reagan. And many experts believe the two allies are now so enmeshed in strategic ties with dialogue at the highest level of government and military that complete Israeli autonomy on a major issue like Iran is notional only. So while no one questions Israels willingness to attack should it deem US-led talks on curbing Iranian uranium enrichment a dead end, such strikes would almost certainly entail at least last-minute coordination with Washington. Israel would want to ensure that its jets would not be shot down by accident if overflying US-occupied Iraq, and to give Americans in the Gulf forewarning of possible Iranian reprisals.
Whether or not Israel got the green light from Washington to attack Iran is almost immaterial, as everybody in the region would believe that the US was complicit, said Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. One US diplomat envisaged Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak telephoning Pentagon chief Robert Gates, unannounced, to give a heads-up and explain once the mission were under way. Gates and the US military brass have voiced distaste for pre-emptive strikes on Iran, which says its uranium enrichment is for legitimate electricity production, not weapons. But their public comments have acknowledged that Israel could break rank.
I do not doubt that Israel will do what it thinks it needs to do, regardless of whether the US approves, said Mark Fitzpatrick, non-profileration expert at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. Israel would seek forgiveness, not permission. A retired Israeli general who advises the government on strategic issues suggested there was a tacit synchronicity in recent messages about Iran from Israel and the United States: The Israeli threat adds urgency to Obamas calls for diplomatic engagement, and should Israel take things into its hands, the Americans retain wriggle room, some deniability.
Israels bombing in 2007 of what the CIA described as a North Korean-built reactor in Syria may provide a precedent. According to a source familiar with the operation, Israel carried out the sortie alone, but only after letting the Americans know that something like this could happen. Its the difference between informing, and seeking consent.
It was the United States which, a year later, published the allegations about the bombed site, pitting its clout as a superpower against Syrian denials. Israel, which has never discussed the attack, was spared the burden of proving its case. As both Obama and Netanyahu head new governments, the Israeli former general said any joint strategy would go unformed at least until the leaders held their first summit on May 18.
Theres a sense that no decision has been made on either side, he said. My impression is that the current American statements are for the record, to convince the international community about the seriousness of the Obama administrations efforts to talk Tehran into a solution.Regardless of Obamas eventual stance, it would be severely tested should US interests be threatened say, with Iran answering an Israeli bombing by goading Shias in Iraq to stoke the embers of their insurgency, or by choking off oil exports. Whatever temporary sense of solidarity with Israel that ensued would be through gritted teeth, said Fitzpatrick, a former US State Department official.
Then again, drawing in the United States, with its superior air power, could serve Israels endgame of putting paid to Irans nuclear facilities. Most analysts think Israels warplanes might set back Irans plans by a few years at best and could never erase the knowledge of Irans atomic scientists. After reacting to the 1981 Iraq strike by saying according to then-National Security Adviser Richard Allen You know what, Dick? Boys will be boys!, Reagan rapped Israel by holding up a shipment of F-16 jets. reuters
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
just a question totach7 do ya read talmud?
