For the past few years, I've been terribly worried about what could happen if Iran's nuclear program wasn't stopped using intensive diplomacy and, if necessary, serious economic sanctions. One of my greatest fears has been that, eventually, if effective action wasn't taken by the world community, Israel might take action unilaterally. The reason? Israel fears, with no lack of justification, that Iranian President Ahmedinejad is serious in his threat to wipe the Jewish state off the face of the earth. And now, after several years during which essentially no progress was made in engaging Iran (once again, heckuva job Bush Adminitsration!!) or in slowing its nuclear program, it looks like Israel may be getting close to a strike of its own on Iran's nuclear facilities. Reportedly, Israel plans to use "bunker-busting" tactical nuclear weapons to make sure it gets the job done. If true, and I hope to God it's not (could it just be saber rattling in order to prompt urgent action?), this would represent the first use of nukes in combat since 1945. To put it mildly, this is utterly terrifying, completely unacceptable, and a situation that needs to be headed off at all costs for the safety of the world.
Given how awful the consequences of a tac-nuke strike by Israel on Iran's nuclear facilities would likely be, why would Israel even consider such a thing? The UK newspaper "The Sunday Times" explains:
...Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, has called for Israel to be wiped off the map, and has been paymaster to Hezbollah. His willingness to provoke Israel apparently knows no bounds.That is why this is such a dangerous time. A nuclear-equipped Iran will not meekly join the club of nuclear states content to have the means of defending itself. Iranian-backed terrorist groups, including Hezbollah and Hamas, would have access to dirty bombs, if not full-scale nuclear weapons.
The bottom line is that we are drifting ever closer to disaster. Which is why we need urgent negotiations on a "grand bargain" with Iran. Which is why the UN Security Council countries need to act before Israel takes matters into its own hands. And which is why the world community needs to stop Iran's nuclear program right now, not a month or two from now. If not, we will wake up someday soon, possibly very soon, to a world that faces the serious threat of nuclear terrorism and absolute disaster.
[UPDATE: Israel is denying that it has such a plan. It says that it is "100 percent committed to the international effort to achieve a diplomatic solution and supports the full and expeditious implementation of UN resolution 1737." Now, let's jumpstart that diplomatic process, before it's too late.]
An overt U.S. attack on Iran will have as little to do with nuclear weapons as our assault on Iraq.
There are plenty of indications such an overt attack could come at any time. Covert assaults are already going on. The Stennis is soon to be a menacing presence in the Gulf (carrying a family member, as it happens). The new CENTCOM chief is a Navy flier. The Saudis are urging us on, edgy about the power Iran has gained from our "catastrophic success" in Iraq. The President is a dim, petulant failure who's being worked by a power-grabbing rightist.
What needs to be stopped, now, is our government's criminal warmongering.
Iran is playing a dangerous game, but a game nonetheless; to be frank, we are too. For all of Ahmadinejad's saber-rattling, he does not control foreign policy in Iran -- the clerics and the Ayatollah do. For all we may disagree with their policies, and for all Ahmadinejad's Holocaust-denial and eschatology may make us nervous, the fact is that the mullahs are very savvy, circumspect, and realistic -- they have no desire to start a regional war or get wiped out by either us or Israel.
The wildcards, frankly, are our and Israel's leadership -- are we or they willing to do something insane that might spark a full-fledged regional war?
Iran is flexing their muscle because we have given them leverage. They fear, and rightly so, that our goal is to overthrow their regime, so they are taking chances to rattle both us and Israel to try and achieve the bargain you speak of.
Deterrence still works. We must make it abundantly clear that if Iran ever, EVER, got working nuclear weapons technology (which they are still probably 5-10 years away from) and either launched a nuclear warhead at Israel or gave the technology to a group such as Hezbollah or Hamas (they are mortal enemies of al Qaeda, so we need not fear that), that we would treat that as an attack on an ally and would respond accordingly, taking them out. With that deterrent card on the table, we can calmly, sanely, sit down and find a policy to sheathe the sabers from both us and Israel.
Of course, GWBush is just crazy enought that this might not happen. 2007 is a very dangerous year in this regard; we need to really hope that someone can temper his millenialistic and messianic impulses, that the Democratic Congress can find some way to foreclose this option, or the entire international system that has prevailed since WWII might be at risk.
The insanity of the situation is that, at the apex of our power in 2003 when the invasion looked like a success, Iran was willing to wheel and deal, including the nuclear issues. We, of course, arrogantly dismissed them and refused to even talk, because apparently the end goal of the uber-neocon-crazies was to engineer a military confrontation down the road. Well, we have now spent the past three years strengthening Iran's bargaining position by turning Iraq into a Hobbesian nightmare and empowering the Shia in Iraq, we are now talking about backing the Shia in the civil war (so we'll piss off our Sunni "allies" in the region as well), and NOW, when Iran is most ascendent in the region, we decide to spark a potential military confrontation? It really is unbelievable. You'd think these guys might have at least played Risk once or twice in their lives. So I think the answer to your question is, yes, they are both crazy and incompetent.
Finally, regarding your question of loose suitcase nukes smuggled into Tel Aviv (I assume Jerusalem is safe because the collateral damage to Muslim holy sites would be too great from a Muslim terrorist's POV), I wonder if this is just a fantastic nightmare scenario that is technically infeasible, a scenario we've invented that isn't really possible. If so, the risk to Israel (and similarly us and Europe) of nuclear annihilation is very, very low, and we should modify our strategies accordingly.
Where did you travel besides Israel? How much time did you spend in Israel, and how much in other countries?
By the way, on a related note, the Egyptian press is calling Iran's nuclear program the "Shi'ite bomb," and they don't like it one bit. Other Sunni Arab countries also are terrified of an Iranian nuclear bomb. And China is now urging Iran to make a "serious response" regarding the UN Security Council resolution on its nuclear program.
The blank check of military, diplomatic, economic, and intelligence support that the U.S. has written the IDF and the Israeli government all these years has enabled them to postpone the consequences of their illegal occupation of the West Bank.
George W. Bush, with his policy of "preventive war" and his willingness to green-light Sharon's unilateralism, has gone further than any other U.S. leader to reinforce the impression that this country will not hold its client state to account.
But none of this has done any favors to the people of Israel. It has only encouraged polarization, and made reconciliation far more difficult and expensive.
With Iran's economy teetering on the brink of catastrophe and the prospect that they won't have any oil revenues in another few years, it seems best to simply wait for their economy to topple on its own. It certainly makes no sense to attack them militarily, because then they will unite with the mullahs against us.
I'm a little skeptical about direct negotiations with Iran at this time--however, at the very least we should be leveraging Iran through Syria and China. A creative diplomat could make things work.
My concern here is that GWB and Co. simply don't have the ability, know-how, or will power to make this happen.
A unilateral strike by Israel would be a disaster. I have to wonder though if a Prime Minister with popularity ratings lower than GWBs would exercise this option, but the sad reality is that you don't get to the 20-30% range by exercising wise judgment.
Citing multiple unidentified Israeli military sources, The Sunday Times said the proposals involved using so-called "bunker-buster" nuclear weapons to attack nuclear facilities at three sites south of the Iranian capital.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office said it would not respond to the claim. "We don't respond to publications in the Sunday Times," said Miri Eisin, Olmert's spokeswoman.
Israeli Minister of Strategic Threats Avigdor Lieberman also declined to comment on the report.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev denied the report and said that "the focus of the Israeli activity today is to give full support to diplomatic actions" and the implementation of a U.N. Security Council resolution imposing sanctions on Iran for refusing to halt enrichment.
I just think that we have to finally take a very realistic approach to Israel as far as being 'allies' in the ME.....
To be sure, Iran IS a problem, thanks to Dubya calling them the axis of evil. 25 years of a gentle trend towards a more open society, with about 60% of its population about 18 now. And they want Levis blue jeans and the Sony Play station. They were ripe for doing business with Israel. But nope, Bush had to ruin that all with his simplistic childish mind.
The latest elections in Iran saw our current President take a real slump in his popularity. Just as there are Israelis who are FAR more interested in peaceful solutions, there are now many Iranians standing up to say the same thing.
To be blunt, they see this posturing and blasting as totally fruitless, and they don;t want to go where Iraq is right now.
What I fear is that diplomatic procedures are clearly not part of the Presidents plan, and it will be up to those like Jim Webb to force this through. Diplomacy and engagement is what we need right now. A wind of change and openness is flowing across the ME right now including ISrael, and we need to tap into it before it dies without having made real progress. We cannot go back to where we have just been for the last few decades.
BTW, I've read that when the neocon newsmedia "translated" the remarks by the Iranian president (won't try to spell his name here), it was mistranslated. What he actually said was more like "Like all other nations, Israel will disappear in the sands of history." Isn't it lucky we depend on the neocon media to translate the Iranian language? This is not the nicest thing to say, but it is more akin to the AA slogan "This too will pass" than a suggestion for destroying Israel.
And apparently we aren't totally dependent on the neocon media because you just set straight.
Suicide because of land? They had a lot to be despondent over. The land is now lush partly because water has been diverted. There is a saying that brown grass is terrorism. On one side of the wall can be found green grass and on the other side is dirt and extremely rationed water (like one alloted trip to water a week). Water is the real resource and it is NOT being shared. Pipes are being built from Iraq to send water to Israel. Iraq had water and oil which cost them dearly.
Israel has never declared its borders because they are not yet finished forcing them. What is described above can also be said today for the Palestinians.