Is Israel preparing to attack Iran?
By David Ignatius, Published: February 2
BRUSSELS

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has a lot on his mind these days, from cutting the defense budget to managing the drawdown of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. But his biggest worry is the growing possibility that Israel will attack Iran over the next few months.

Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June — before Iran enters what Israelis described as a “zone of immunity” to commence building a nuclear bomb. Very soon, the Israelis fear, the Iranians will have stored enough enriched uranium in deep underground facilities to make a weapon — and only the United States could then stop them militarily.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu doesn’t want to leave the fate of Israel dependent on American action, which would be triggered by intelligence that Iran is building a bomb, which it hasn’t done yet.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak may have signaled the prospect of an Israeli attack soon when he asked last month to postpone a planned U.S.-Israel military exercise that would culminate in a live-fire phase in May. Barak apologized that Israel couldn’t devote the resources to the annual exercise this spring.

President Obama and Panetta are said to have cautioned the Israelis that the United States opposes an attack, believing that it would derail an increasingly successful international economic sanctions program and other non-military efforts to stop Iran from crossing the threshold. But the White House hasn’t yet decided precisely how the United States would respond if the Israelis do attack.

The Obama administration is conducting intense discussions about what an Israeli attack would mean for the United States: whether Iran would target U.S. ships in the region or try to close the Strait of Hormuz; and what effect the conflict and a likely spike in oil prices would have on the fragile global economy.

The administration appears to favor staying out of the conflict unless Iran hits U.S. assets, which would trigger a strong U.S. response.

This U.S. policy — signaling that Israel is acting on its own — might open a breach like the one in 1956, when President Dwight Eisenhower condemned an Israeli-European attack on the Suez Canal. Complicating matters is the 2012 presidential campaign, which has Republicans candidates clamoring for stronger U.S. support of Israel.

Administration officials caution that Tehran shouldn’t misunderstand: The United States has a 60-year commitment to Israeli security, and if Israel’s population centers were hit, the United States could feel obligated to come to Israel’s defense.

Israelis are said to believe that a military strike could be limited and contained. They would bomb the uranium-enrichment facility at Natanz and other targets; an attack on the buried enrichment facility at Qom would be harder from the air. Iranians would retaliate, but Israelis doubt that the action would be an overwhelming barrage, with rockets from Hezbollah forces in Lebanon. One Israeli estimate is that the Jewish state might have to absorb 500 casualties.

Israelis point to Syria’s lack of response to an Israeli attack on a nuclear reactor there in 2007. Iranians might show similar restraint, because of fear the regime would be endangered by all-out war. Some Israelis have also likened a strike on Iran to the 1976 hostage-rescue raid on Entebbe, Uganda, which was followed by a change of regime in that country.

Israeli leaders are said to accept, and even welcome, the prospect of going it alone and demonstrating their resolve at a time when their security is undermined by the Arab Spring.

“You stay to the side, and let us do it,” one Israeli official is said to have advised the United States. A “short-war” scenario assumes five days or so of limited Israeli strikes, followed by a U.N.-brokered cease-fire. The Israelis are said to recognize that damage to the nuclear program might be modest, requiring another strike in a few years.

U.S. officials see two possible ways to dissuade the Israelis from such an attack: Tehran could finally open serious negotiations for a formula to verifiably guarantee that its nuclear program will remain a civilian one; or the United States could step up its covert actions to degrade the program so much that Israelis would decide that military action wasn’t necessary.

U.S. officials don’t think that Netanyahu has made a final decision to attack, and they note that top Israeli intelligence officials remain skeptical of the project. But senior Americans doubt that the Israelis are bluffing. They’re worrying about the guns of spring — and the unintended consequences.

davidignatius@washpost.com

Phototoxin wrote:It's a long time coming. Hopefully Iran will pull out their WMD and nuke Israel into orbit. It might shake things up a bit.

Phototoxin wrote:It's a long time coming. Hopefully Iran will pull out their WMD and nuke Israel into orbit. It might shake things up a bit.

biccat wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:It's a long time coming. Hopefully Iran will pull out their WMD and nuke Israel into orbit. It might shake things up a bit.

Nothing like religiously-motivated genocide to get the juices flowing, eh?

Also, we've been talking about this for at least the last 3 years...I think I'm burned out on the "Israel is going to bomb Iran" stories.

biccat wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:It's a long time coming. Hopefully Iran will pull out their WMD and nuke Israel into orbit. It might shake things up a bit.

Nothing like religiously-motivated genocide to get the juices flowing, eh?

Also, we've been talking about this for at least the last 3 years...I think I'm burned out on the "Israel is going to bomb Iran" stories.

Lone Cat wrote:Sometimes you need GUNS (and maybe nukes) to make talking EASIER.
but will Persians care of fellow Shia muslims living in Jerusalem and around?

If the war brokes out. Who will the Papacy sides with? Jews? or Persians?

biccat wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:It's a long time coming. Hopefully Iran will pull out their WMD and nuke Israel into orbit. It might shake things up a bit.

Nothing like religiously-motivated genocide to get the juices flowing, eh?

Also, we've been talking about this for at least the last 3 years...I think I'm burned out on the "Israel is going to bomb Iran" stories.

Lone Cat wrote:Sometimes you need GUNS (and maybe nukes) to make talking EASIER.
but will Persians care of fellow Shia muslims living in Jerusalem and around?

If the war brokes out. Who will the Papacy sides with? Jews? or Persians?

Lone Cat wrote:^ Which of the two nations are likely to be condemned by the Pope should the two went war against each other (which expected to be the big gambit of the two nations. y'know boths are at odds to each other. neither do they believe that each other can coexist without hatred)

Phototoxin wrote:It's a long time coming. Hopefully Iran will pull out their WMD and nuke Israel into orbit. It might shake things up a bit.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:Israel is gonna become a sheet of glass. Even the West is getting sick of the place.

Huffy wrote:
I thought the consensus was that Israel doesn't have the capability to effectively bomb Iran..meh

Lone Cat wrote:^ Which of the two nations are likely to be condemned by the Pope should the two went war against each other (which expected to be the big gambit of the two nations. y'know boths are at odds to each other. neither do they believe that each other can coexist without hatred)

Frazzled wrote:Who cares?

Lone Cat wrote:In your point of view. between the two civilizations. who do you think are the more 'civilized' than the other?

DeadlySquirrel wrote:It ain't Turkey you need to worry about. It's Russia.

Phototoxin wrote:It's a long time coming. Hopefully Iran will pull out their WMD and nuke Israel into orbit. It might shake things up a bit.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:Israel is a blight upon the Earth.

AustonT wrote:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:Israel is a blight upon the Earth.

obvious troll is obvious.

Harriticus wrote:1.) Israel is attacking Iran not because, but to maintain it's nuclear monopoly with states it is at war with and maintain said strategic advantage .The Allies for instance would have bombed a German nuclear facility in WW2 had one been built. It's little different and understandable/justified considered Iran's aggressive policies towards it. If Iran were to leave Israel alone, said threat of Israeli response wouldn't exist.

2.) Iran is an aggressive and imperialistic force in the region and the world, they cause trouble in countries such as Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Azerbaijan, Thailand, and Argentina for no reason other then religious fanaticism and/or a lust for power and accepting that they have a "right" to nuclear weapons out of "Fairness" is immature and silly.

3.) All this "Derp derp Israel sux nuke it", is silly, besides the whole obvious immoral side to it. The Arab-Israeli conflict really doesn't effect anyone but Israel and it's one of the fastest growing economies in the world (the second fastest economically growing OECD state after Germany), with a highly educated population. It contributes to the international community, and does so under constant siege/war/bad press while not having any oil.

4.) Russia won't go to war against Israel if Iran were attacked. They are closer to Syria strategically, and when Syria's nuclear plant went boom in 2007 Russia did nothing. The Russians have interests in Iran, but not to the point of starting a war with a nuclear state it really isn't even on bad terms with.

5.) Israel attacking Iran won't lead to WW3. It will just involve Israel and Iran/its proxies, unless Iran gets stupid and decides to attack Arab states because they're easier to hit. In which case the US would get involved, but you should blame the Arab dependence of the US and the Americans constantly fighting Arab wars for them rather then blaming Israel.

6.) It is unlikely Israel will attack Iran, as while their military is powerful in defensive scenarios or those close to its borders, it lacks the power projection to permanent knock out Iran's nuclear capability due to the distances involved and the number of targets. Israel however has successfully rattled the cafe of the UN by threatening to attack so much, which has led to a rush of sanctions against Iran to appease them. This in turn has cut Iran off from its largest trading partner, the EU, and is a crippling blow to the already struggling Iranian economy. It was a clever political maneuver on Israel's part.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:Not trolling. Just speaking the truth.

Hulksmash wrote:
Care to explain your postition beyond the single trollish line you posted? I'm interested in the reasoning.