Options for an Israeli attack on Iran
By Geoffrey Cook, TMO
Pismo Beach–As we traverse the October before the American polls, the following information seems to have come from a report probably purposely leaked by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) to Foreign Policy (FP) magazine/journal which seems to be fairly close to U.S. government sources. It was included an e-mailed daily (U.S.) national security briefing.
Why such information would be obviously purposefully divulged: Because Israel will brief Washington on what they plan to do over the Iran issue. It is their guarded secret due to the fact that the U.S. has no interest in taking part in a â€œpreventiveâ€ strike, and D.C. (the District of Columbia) could make it very hard for Tel Aviv to carry it out if the Hebrews plan to do so. As a retired CentCom (the U.S. Central Command) officer is quoted by FP â€œâ€¦weâ€™re not going to go piling in simply because the Israelis want us to.â€
It is assumed by American military intelligence that Israel has three options when it comes to attacking Iran. Although Tel Aviv has been uncooperative on informational sharing with the Obama Administration, which shows a likely schism between the District on the political level, has rightful reservations against yet another confrontation with a further Muslim country in that it would not be within the best external interests of the United States. Some theoretical situations for such a development are evolving (probably through computerized war games), though.
There is a grave political fear that the Jewish Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will order his assault before November sixth to intervene in the American political process to discourage President Barack Obama, who holds a much more favorable opinion of the Islamic world than his Mormon (which is only questionably a Christian sect) Republican challenger, the pro-Israeli Mitt Romney, from achieving a second term a la Jimmy Carter in 1980.
Ultimately, the geo-political importance of peace with Dar al-Islam is essential to the security goals of the American people, and, thereby, is against the security objectives of the Zionists. Succinctly, what is good for America is too often not so with Israel. I am one of those geo-strategic U.S. writers who deem that Israel is no longer Columbiaâ€™s â€œgurkhas.â€ They have become an albatross around Washingtonâ€™s neck â€“ only leading the American Metropolis (Center of Empire) into unnecessary entanglements within the Islamic world of no value to the â€œImperial Homelandâ€™sâ€ advancement; in fact, has led to this chasm of nuclear war which the great powers must refrain from enabling.
American military sources hold shrill opinions on whether Israel has the military prowess to maintain a piercing thrust into Iran without the United States at their backs. Even though, the civilian government in Tel Aviv may order the IDF (the Israeli Defense Force) over the Islamic Republic of Iran even though it could mean a military debacle for them and ultimately endanger the survival of their State itself to, obviously, ensure a â€œsmokescreenâ€ for the perseverance of their illegal Settlements and the expulsion of the indigenous Arabs from their ancient land.
The right-wing Zionists fear that a second-term Obama would discourage their immoral and unlawful aims. Concisely, this whole crisis has been created by the Likud party in Israel to divert the attention from the West of the Settlements by a pseudo-atomic impasse. In short, this is a distasteful endgame with potential disastrous consequences, and must be discouraged at all costs!
There are three probable scenarios: The first is an â€œIranian Entebbe,â€ which is named for Israelâ€™s 1976 commando raid into Uganda to rescue of a group hostages there. At this time their commandos would be lowered into the Shia Republicâ€™s Fordow nuclear facility to destroy the enriched uranium; planting explosives as they departed. The objective would be as much to demonstrate their ability to psychologically strike into the maximum security facility within the territory of the Medes ancient Empire.
The second possibility is the most assumed: Simply, bombing the nuclear sites with aircraft and submarine-launched cruise missiles along with Israeli-based medium-range Jericho II and long-range Jericho III missiles.
This would, also, create a massive war. Hopefully, with no change in political leadership in Washington in the upcoming elections and restraint by the Revolutionary Guard, the battle would remain between Tel Aviv and Tehran.
Iranâ€™s nuclear facilities are hard targets â€“ in mountains, and even though the IDF possesses Bunker Buster bombs, in order for Israel to pull off a successful sortie, I cannot see how the Israeli air force could do it without tactical nuclear weapons. This brings the issue of Iranâ€™s military (the largest in the Middle East) and Hezbollah to launch a successful conventional counter-attack with their superior conventional payload upon the Israeli nuclear facilities in the Negev and population centers. This could create large scale nuclear pollution over a highly populated area of Arabs and Jews.
At the very least, the human cost of such an immoral assault, which I discussed last week, would turn off any remaining sympathy that the Israeli State may still hold in the non-Muslim world. This involves the release of uranium hexafluoride into the environment over the Persians causing up to hundreds of thousands of deaths over the highly populated centers within the nearby habitable habitats.
Further, if an attack becomes imminent would the Russian (nuclear) Navy out of its Syrian ports in the Mediterranean or even the French allow such a massacre to happen? Additionally, the variables of Syria and their danger of war with Turkey — whom NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) and, thereby, the United States have an offensive and defensive Treaty â€“ may force the West into the fray whether like to or not.
Still, the third world nuclear South Asian nations â€“ India and (Islamic) Pakistan have a large stake in the Gulf (e.g., SASPC, an evolving new-area-studies discipline of South Asian Studies Persian Gulf) and Iranâ€™s natural resources. This could complicate matters, and could either encourage of the settlement of the crisis between Hindu (with the second largest Muslim population) India and Islamic Pakistan (with their mutual dependence on Iranian resources; i.e., a repeat of the 2001-2003 Indo-Pakistani stare-down â€“ only a potential enlarged the war at an Israeli attack. At the same token, Rawalpindi might feel more threatened by weaponized Tehran, and New Delhi has a nominal alliance with both Iran and Tel Aviv. I cannot see Bharat intervening, but for Pakistan, as I discussed in a series of previous articles, to intervene conventionally or unconventionally, it would need the tacit nod from its traditional eastern regional â€œenemy.â€
The U.S.â€™ military intelligence judges that the IDFâ€™s air force would have only a one-time chance of even making a successful strike because of their logistical constraints without the District of Columbia (D.Câ€™) aid. While the Zionist State is attempting to sucker the Metropole(U.S.) into a war against D.C.â€™ concerns, (there is an Azeri [Azerbaijan], a former Soviet Turkic Republic with ethnic cousins in Iran, connection. I have read reliable speculation on Azerbaijani willingness to refuel Israeli plans. An unreliable document from a shadowy organization who are working to form a unified territory from their ethnic cousins across the border in border claims the Israelis are â€rentingâ€ an air base in their Republic north of Iran proper.)
The third option of according the author in Foreign Policy is â€œde-capitation,â€ or regime change, but this would not end Iranâ€™s nuclear program, and most likely the U.S. would beâ€ counterâ€-attacked, too, with the result that the Persian Revolutionary Guard would become the ascendant force in the country. This definitely would be a way for forcing the U.S.A. into a war with Israeli, again â€“ not the interests of the State, but the small minority of worldwide Jewry who make up the Settler Colonial State. (It is important to note that all of these projected plans would not end the Iranian capability for refinement by more than two years.
Added to this, the best public intelligence estimates is that Iran stopped its weapon program almost a decade ago, and an aggression would only demonstrate the requirement for such a warhead.)
This would lead to a wider war which could include the Revolutionary Guards allying themselves to forces with the ability to attack Americans still in Iraq with their NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) withdrawing from Afghanistan.
Also, the Shia and Sunni forces could turn on each other igniting a larger Middle Eastern conflagration, and, in doing thus, could threaten the reforms of the Arab â€œSpring!â€ We can only conjecture how such non-State actors such as Al-Qaeda will fill the void.
Whatever, the stupidities that the Israeli government is planning, as one American strategist has stated on the subject â€œâ€¦Israelâ€™s access to intelligence on Iranian military and policy planning is unprecedentedâ€¦,â€ but it is keeping its cards close to its breast to, seemingly, leverage the American political process.
That Rogue nuclear State –who claims to be the voice for the larger noble Jewish people in the Diaspora — is playing a very, very hazardous game which â€“ at the worst — could ignite a world war with atomic dimensions!
This exercise has been one of what ifs based on facts uncovered in Foreign Policy, but amplified and played upon by your writer to analyze various scenarios â€“ much like the war games played in think tanks. What I have convinced myself I through this exercise that a most real and precarious situation exists with not even a counter-balance of a MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction), which in itself cannot be maintained indefinitely at that, operating.
This must be stopped! Men of good-will Pray to Allah (God)!