Israel is quickly coming up on the point of no return for how to deal with iran's nuclear program. if you look at the current geo-political climate, you would infer that the world community has not the will to take this problem on - leaving it for Israel to deal with. this, of course, is easy for political leaders with no sense of right and wrong. let Israel act unilaterally, point the finger at them, blame them for the consequences.. all the while happy that iran doesn't have the bomb. this is a tried and true strategy for the power brokers in the world. (read: osirak)
if you examine the bush policy of late, it seems somewhat disjointed and inconsistent. we have recently seen the united states take north korea off the state sponsor of terror list and also directly engage the iranian's in nuclear discussions. these are significant departures from the prior course of action. the question begs, is this a change of direction for us diplomacy? is this a change of heart by george bush?
i think, what we are seeing is bush setting the stage for an attack on iran's nuclear facilities. i think much of what is taking place right now is posturing and 'required' due diligence to demonstrate that every possible step that was needed was taken prior to an attack.
the us has rewarded north korea for their nuclear 'compliance' and now that model is being shown to iran. iran continues to ignore it. israel continues to be asked to give and give and give and they do so with minimal complaint.
the us and Israel have linked air defense systems and Israel is looped in to the missile launch early warning systems from the us - something that has happened prior to desert storm and iraqi freedom.
the united states is sending many mixed messages related to readiness and prospects of a 3rd front in the war, and most of them are negative. the united states wants a diplomatic solution, the united states doesn't want to open another front, the united states is looking to the world community, etc.. yet, there are threads of insight.
admiral mullen has said that iran would not be allowed to close the straits of hormuz. all indications have been given that the united states would defend Israel at all costs.
the world watches on..
some of my thoughts on the situation are as follows -
Israel has warned many, many times that the world needs to act on this and not leave it to Israel. history tells us that once you get through the self hating jews, Israel means what it says. when it's existence is threatened, which it has been, a cornered animal is a dangerous animal.
this tells me there are a couple of things that could be at play. first, if Israel attempts a conventional attack on iranian nuclear facilities unilaterally, that will certainly elicit a response from iran. the united states is sworn to Israel's defense, so united states involvement would be justified at that point. further consider iran's desire to hit at united states facilities in the region, that would draw the usa in without need for world body deliberations or painful posturing in the congress. that would be the green light for a massive counter attack in response to iran's attack on Israel and united states facilities. this, in my mind, is the best approach. it prevents many of the geopolitical drama created by the iraq war and the response is fully justified and can be from all angles and overwhelming.
Israel is justified in attacking iran's nuclear sites due to the rhetoric from iran. there is no further justification needed to take action. the iranian counter attack would include attacks on Israel from every front - north, south, east and west. Israel must prepare for that eventuality and possibly even take action in conjunction with an operation in iran - in lebanon and gaza. iran's response would surely include attacks on united states interests, which would result in an overwhelming, well planned counter punch to finish the job Israel started.
this approach assumes coordination between Israel and the united states - which is not atypical.
if the united states abandons Israel and leaves her to go this alone, the global consequences would be dire.
the second conclusion i can arrive at is that Israel is backed in to a corner and is forced to deal with iran alone and a new president or a liberal us congress does not back Israel. this would result in a far more overwhelming act from Israel to make sure that they set back iran's program by more than a few years.
what i'm taking about is the use of Israeli tactical nuclear weapons to attack iran's nuclear sites in a coordinated attack which would leave much of iran in disarray and would send a shocking and sobering message through the region.
if you threaten the destruction of Israel, you will face the full brunt of Israel's array of weaponry.
this would certainly set back iran's nuclear program, it would also elicit an overwhelming response from the world community. i think that is why Israel continues to say that it would be far better for the world community to deal with this problem than the Jews. Israel doesn't have a history of beating around the bush when it comes to the well being of the nation.
i think this is a real possibility. it would certainly force the united nations to act and it would significantly change the paradigm in the region.
if it does happen, i'm certain there will be much hand wringing and finger pointing.. but Israel has been clear from the very beginning. the world community needs to act before Israel is forced to act. the world community won't like what it gets for inaction.
No comments:
Post a Comment