Quick Scan: Israeli attack on Iran

Sefi Rachlevsky in an article in Haaretz says that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu will be gambling with Israeli lives if he attacks Iran in the run-up to the US presidential election. He knows that Israel is not able to destroy the Iranian nuclear enrichment sites, but that the US could. He believes that the Iranian response to an Israeli attack would force Obama to join in: if he didn’t, he would lose the election, and Romney would complete the job. The writer says

No leadership in Israel has the right to send the Israel Defense Forces to war and to endanger tens of thousands of citizens and soldiers when it does not have the power to win the war with its own forces.

and that if such an imbecilic order was given it would be the duty of the senior officers to disobey it.

[Comment:  it is also the duty of officers to disobey illegal orders. An attack on Iran made on the grounds that Iran might possibly become a threat to Israel at some future point in time would be a clear breach of the UN Charter, and illegal in international law.]

Justin Raimondo, writing in AntiWar.com, thinks that Netanyahu is trying to force the US to do the bombing, by threatening to use nuclear weapons if Israel has to go it alone.

Richard Silverstein on his blog Ticun Olam (Mend the World) claims to have a leaked copy of the war plan for the attack.

Uri Avnery, veteran Israeli peace activist, says

Binyamin Netanyahu may be crazy, but he is not mad.
Ehud Barak may be mad, but he is not crazy.
Ergo: Israel will not attack Iran.

Hossein Mousavian was formerly Iran’s chief negotiator in the talks with the EU on Iran’s nuclear program, and is now a scholar at Princeton University.  Writing in ArmsControl.org he gives a history of the negotiations, explaining how the West’s inflexible attitudes are inadvertently pushing Iran toward nuclear weapons, and then says

The West now appears prepared to take a further counterproductive step by imposing devastating sanctions or launching a military strike. If that happened, Iran would be likely to withdraw from the NPT and pursue nuclear weapons.

He proposes  a face-saving solution under which Iran would adhere to all international nuclear conventions and treaties at the maximum level of transparency defined by the IAEA. Furthermore, Iran would accept a “zero stockpile” supply of 20% enriched uranium for the Tehran research reactor. In return, the West would confirm Iran’s right to enrichment under the NPT , and would progressively lift sanctions.

In the Washington Post, David Ignatius is Seeking to Cool War Fever over Iran.

About David Gerald Fincham

Retired academic scientist.
This entry was posted in 7. QUICK SCANS, Israel / Palestine. Bookmark the permalink.