Skip to main content

Israel readies itself for an attack on Iran?

Hope that this piece from Haaretz on the Israeli PM's possible timing - let alone the intention to get it underway - of an attack on Iran isn't right.      Just reflect on the fallout not the least on the US presidential election.

"The headline of today's Maariv is extremely important, if true. It quotes American officials who say that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has promised not to carry out an attack on Iran before the fall.

Since most military analysts believe that Israel would almost certainly prefer to carry out a complex and difficult long-range attack on Iran in a period when the skies above the target are cloudless, that either means Israel has agreed to postpone the potential strike for at least another eleven months or that the window of opportunity is open now for September or October. In other words, during the crucial final stages of the American presidential elections campaign.

This seems to be the fear of Maariv's un-named administration sources, complaining that "Netanyahu refused to commit that Israel would not attack Iran before the elections in November 2012 and agreed to wait with a military operation only until the fall."

According to the paper, Netanyahu's reasoning is that "after fall, the Iranian nuclear installations will be in 'the immunity zone' from an Israeli strike and Israel will lose its independence to decide on military action."

We have no way of verifying this report but it does tally with what Barack Obama said two months ago - "I don't think that Israel has made a decision on what they need to do." And of course, it fits in with Netanyahu's tendency to play the internal American political arena.

Announcing that Israel may decide to attack Iran at the worst possible political timing puts pressure on Obama, and could potentially lead to some valuable American concessions to Israel, in exchange for an eventual commitment not to strike."

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...
Post a Comment
Read more

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...
6 comments
Read more