Israeli attack on Iran?

It is hard to imagine that Israel would embark on such a mad and suicidal course of action. But then these are not normal times and a lot of Israelis seem to be very worried, and I think we should too.

If This Document Is Correct Israel's Attack On Iran Would Be Like Nothing Seen Before

Business Insider,

16 Augustl, 2012

American blogger Richard Silverstein claims to have acquired an "Israeli briefing document" that outlines an Israeli attack on Iran and its nuclear facilities.

While the validity of the report is seriously in question, it does outline a rather spectacular 21st century attack.

Arutz Sheva translated the document from its original Hebrew and writes:

"The Israeli attack on Iran “will begin with a coordinated strike, including an unprecedented cyber-attack which will totally paralyze the Iranian regime and its ability to know what is happening within its borders. The internet, telephones, radio and television, communications satellites, and fiber optic cables leading to and from critical installations will be taken out of action. The electrical grid throughout Iran will be paralyzed and transformer stations will absorb severe damage from carbon fiber munitions which are finer than a human hair, causing electrical short circuits whose repair requires their complete removal.”

Following the coordinated strike, according to the document, “A barrage of tens of ballistic missiles would be launched from Israel toward Iran. 300km ballistic missiles would be launched from Israeli submarines in the vicinity of the Persian Gulf. The missiles would not be armed with unconventional warheads [WMD], but rather with high-explosive ordnance equipped with reinforced tips designed specially to penetrate hardened targets.

“The missiles will strike their targets—some exploding above ground like those striking the nuclear reactor at Arak–which is intended to produce plutonium and tritium—and the nearby heavy water production facility; the nuclear fuel production facilities at Isfahan and facilities for enriching uranium-hexaflouride.  Others would explode under-ground, as at the Fordo facility.

“A barrage of hundreds of cruise missiles will pound command and control systems, research and development facilities, and the residences of senior personnel in the nuclear and missile development apparatus,” continues the document exposed by Silverstein. “Intelligence gathered over years will be utilized to completely decapitate Iran’s professional and command ranks in these fields.”

The "document" goes on to say that after the initial attacks, Israeli satellites will pass over Iran to gauge the damage. Then:

"Only after rapidly decrypting the satellite’s data, will the information be transferred directly to war planes making their way covertly toward Iran. These IAF planes will be armed with electronic warfare gear previously unknown to the wider public, not even revealed to our U.S. ally. This equipment will render Israeli aircraft invisible. Those Israeli war planes which participate in the attack will damage a short-list of targets which require further assault.”

The news of the "leak" is blossoming around the Web, but David Cenciotti at The Aviationist brings his experience to bear on the subject and offers some of the most unique insights that conclude with the likelihood it's all nothing more than speculation. Regardless, his evaluation is worth checking out here

Israeli DM Declares Public Opposition to War on Iran Doesn’t Matter

The Israeli cabinet's case for war on Iran defies reason

by John Glaser

Anti War,

16 August, 2012

In response to a flurry of protests and civilian statements opposing an Israeli war on Iran, Defense Minister Ehud Barak struck back, dismissing the protests as irrelevant and declaring it the government’s business alone.

Apparently trying to showcase his appreciation for democracy, Barak said “The prime minister, defense minister and foreign minister have the authority…and the decision will be made as necessary by the government of Israel. That’s how it is and how it needs to be — not a group of civilians or even newspaper editorials.”

Barak then conceded that a unilateral military attack on Iran has its dangers and complications. But, he warned, war with a nuclear-armed Iran would be “incomparably” more dangerous than a preemptive campaign now.

This is of course a false choice which presumes the two major lies about Iran. First, that it is developing nuclear weapons, which it isn’t. And second, that some future nuclear-armed Iran would go to war with Israel, which almost certainly wouldn’t happen since countries get nuclear weapons to deter wars, not to fight them – especially not with other nuclear-armed countries like Israel.

US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Martin Dempsey this week said that Israel doesn’t have the capability to completely destroy Iran nuclear program, only to set it back a few years. Apparently in response to this, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said going it alone was still worth it, even if it only set the program back slightly

.

The reason for this, Netanyahu said, is that even such a limited strike could hasten regime change. This estimate is not just wrong, it’s indicative of some seriously ludicrous thinking.

Far more likely, a strike on Iran for a nuclear weapons program it doesn’t have would make clear to the Iranian leadership that it must have nuclear weapons in order to deter future attacks and attempts at regime change.

As former CIA analyst Paul Pillar wrote in the March issue of Washington Monthly, overly optimistic war proponents think “the same regime that cannot be trusted with a nuclear weapon because it is recklessly aggressive and prone to cause regional havoc would suddenly become, once attacked, a model of calm and caution, easily deterred by the threat of further attacks.”

And as New York Times reporter David Sanger has reported, officials in the Obama administration feel the same. “We wanted to make it abundantly clear that an attack would just drive the program more underground,” one official told Sanger. “The inspectors would be thrown out. The Iranians would rebuild, more determined than ever. And eventually, they would achieve their objective.”

Attacking Iran would not just be counterproductive in this sense, it would also be illegal. Since Iran has no nuclear weapons program, there is no conceivable imminent threat to the US or Israel and thus no attack is justified. Indeed, a preventive attack would constitute a war crime, as George Perkovich of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has said.

As Aaron David Miller, scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center, said in May, given the fact that Iran has no nuclear weapons program, “a unilateral attack [on Iran] would be totally discretionary. It would be a war of choice,” not of necessity. That is, illegal.

The corrresponding headline in Israel's Haaretz is - 

With his back against the wall, Nasrallah may seek to provoke a war with Israel

Hezbollah will give crushing response if Tel Aviv attacks Lebanon: Nasrallah

Hezbollah Secretary-General Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah has warned that the anti-Israel resistance movement will turn the lives of hundreds of thousands of Israelis into a living hell if Tel Aviv attacks Lebanon again.

Press TV,

17 August, 2012

Addressing Hezbollah supporters on the occasion of the International Al-Quds Day, Nasrallah said on Friday that Hezbollah has both the capability and the courage to defend Lebanon and that the movement's missiles are ready to strike back certain targets inside Israel in self-defense if Tel Aviv launches an attack on Lebanon.

"If we are forced to use them to protect our people and our country, we will not hesitate to do so... and that will turn the lives of hundreds of thousands of Zionists into a living hell," Nasrallah said, adding that Hezbollah has fixed its targets.

He also said that a possible future war would be extremely costly for Israel and incomparable with its 2006 war against Lebanon.

Hezbollah leader said Israel's humiliating defeat in the 33-day war in 2006 is the main reason behind Israeli military officials' opposition to the government plans for launching war against another country, namely Iran.

He also criticized certain Arab states for fueling the unrest in Syria by supporting and funding anti-Damascus insurgents, saying that they are serving Israeli interests by doing that since Tel Aviv wants the anti-Israel resistance axis to lose Syria.

Nasrallah described some Arab leaders as "leaders of sedition" over their tough approach toward Syria unrest.

He urged Saudi Arabia to stop funding media outlets that promote division among Muslims.

The Hezbollah leader also condemned the Organization of Islamic Cooperation's (OIC) decision to suspend Syria’s membership, saying that the move means a green light to more killings and bloodshed in the country.

Nasrallah also urged Muslims around the world to adopt a unified stance on Israeli-Palestinian conflict and al-Quds issue.

Israel strike on Iran would be disaster: Netanyahu's ex-deputy

A former deputy of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Friday a pre-emptive military strike against Iran over its nuclear program could embroil Israel in a "disastrous war".

News Daily,

17 August, 2012

Shaul Mofaz, a parliamentary opposition leader who quit Netanyahu's cabinet last month where he served as vice premier, said on Israeli television he thought Israel was "planning a hasty, irresponsible event".

The former general and defense minister said he thought Israel could not do anything to force a strategic change in Iran's nuclear program, which the West suspects is aimed at producing atomic weapons. Tehran says it is for peaceful purposes.

As a member of Netanyahu's security cabinet for two months, Mofaz was privy to deliberations on Iran's nuclear program.

He told Channel 2 television in a studio interview that any Israeli military action "can at the most delay it (Iran's program) by about a year, and it can bring upon us a disastrous war".

Naming both Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, he said he was "very worried at what they are preparing". He added: "I hope very much we don't reach such a war because it would be a disaster."

Days after he quit the cabinet late in July in a dispute about military conscription policy, Mofaz, who heads the centrist Kadima party, cautioned he would not back any Israeli military "adventures".

His comments echoed those of other former Israeli security officials who have spoken against any unilateral attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, with some saying such an assault could spur Tehran to speed up uranium enrichment.

Some officials have also voiced concern that any strike could prompt Iran's proxies in the region, such as Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon, to launch rocket attacks on Israel.

Israel, widely believed to be the only atomic power in the Middle East, views Iran's nuclear program as an existential threat, citing threats made by leaders of the Islamist nation to destroy the Jewish state.

There has been an upsurge in rhetoric from Israeli politicians this month suggesting Israel might attack Iran's nuclear facilities ahead of U.S. presidential elections in November.

Netanyahu is frustrated that Western diplomacy to try to force Iran to rein in its program has so far proved fruitless. Reported intelligence leaks that Tehran has been accelerating rather than scaling back its program have added to tensions.

However senior Israeli officials have said that a final decision about whether to attack Iran has not yet been taken, with ministers disagreeing over the issue and the military hierarchy unhappy about the prospect of going it alone without full U.S. backing.