Latest Study Supports View That Iran Attack Unlikely To Work
Chance of Success Is Dubious, While Risks Are Overwhelming
By Nathan Guttman and Larry Cohler-Esses
Washington — As Israel continues to proclaim its readiness to launch a military attack on Iran should American diplomacy fail to stop Tehran’s drive for nuclear capabilities, an increasing number of analysts and some political leaders are publicly questioning Jerusalem’s confident portrayal of its chance for military success.
Their concerns, based on sober analyses of Israel’s known capacities and the scope of the challenge it would face, are crystallized in a recent 114-page paper by Anthony Cordesman and Abdullah Toukan, senior scholars at Washington’s Center for Strategic & International Studies. They have produced what is regarded as the most detailed public study thus far of the challenges Israel would face.
Their conclusion: Chances of a strong success — defined by how much of Iran’s uranium enrichment program is destroyed or the number of years the attack delays Iran’s acquisition of material sufficient to build a nuclear bomb — seem dubious, while the risks of the undertaking and its harsh military and destabilizing geopolitical consequences seem overwhelming.
“The number of aircraft required, refueling along the way and getting to the targets without being detected or intercepted, would be complex and high risk, and would lack any assurances that the overall mission will have a high success rate,” the authors write of Israel’s military prospect.
Cordesman — a former national security adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona — is considered among the leading analysts on the Middle East and American military and strategic policy. Toukan was an adviser to the late King Hussein of Jordan.
In Israel, growing fear of a nuclear Iran, stoked by escalating rhetoric in Tehran and Jerusalem, has moved half of all Israelis to support an immediate Israeli strike against Iran, without waiting for the United States to complete its attempt at diplomatic engagement, according to a recent poll by Tel Aviv University’s Center for Iranian Studies.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a longtime proponent of a viable Israeli military option against Iran, has been a prime figure in both reflecting and reinforcing his constituents’ eagerness to act. As recently as May 26, in a meeting with members of his Likud Party, Netanyahu said, referring to Iran, “My job is first and foremost to ensure the future of the state of Israel… the leadership’s job is to eliminate the danger. Who will eliminate it? It is us or no one.”
Cordesman and Toukan wade deep into the weeds of how this would be done. They warn that limited aerial resources would force Israel to limit itself to attacks on just three key sites among Iran’s numerous nuclear development centers. And the bombings themselves would require a demanding and repeated pinpoint accuracy to penetrate thick reinforced concrete and deep underground facilities protected by substantial Iranian air defenses.
Their March 14 study notes that these defenses may include a deadly, ultra-sophisticated Russian anti-aircraft system that could down 20% to 30% of Israel’s attack aircraft — “a loss Israel would hardly accept in paying.” They note reports that Russia has secretly supplied Iran with this system, the SA-12 Gladiator/Giant. Also, even a successful Israeli attack on these three sites could prove futile, they warn, if Iran maintains secret facilities for uranium enrichment, as some suspect.
Meanwhile, in the event of an attack, Iran and its Shi’ite allies in neighboring countries would launch retaliatory attacks against Israel, American military forces in Iraq, and Western interests regionwide, Cordesman and Toukan suggest. They predict that these attacks would include ballistic missiles — including some with chemical, biological and radiological warheads — targeting “Tel-Aviv, Israeli military and civilian centers and Israeli suspected nuclear weapons sites.” Israel’s air defenses would not be adequate to counter the tens of thousands of missiles likely, they add.
Also, contrary to Israeli claims of tacit Arab support for an Israeli strike against Iran, “Arab countries will not condone any attack on Iran under the pretext that Iran poses an existential threat to Israel, whilst Israel has some 200 to 300 nuclear weapons,” they write. An Israeli attack, therefore, “will also harm for a very long period of time relations between the U.S. and its close regional allies,” they claim.
Such a heavy military and strategic price, weighed against the real possibility that an Israeli strike will not significantly set back Iran’s nuclear abilities, make an Israeli attack unlikely, many who have examined the issue say.
Indeed, as he neared the end of his time in office last year, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert argued — in contradiction to the public stance he took during his tenure — that Israel had “lost its sense of proportion” when claiming that it could deal militarily with Iran’s nuclear threat. “Let’s be more modest, and act within the bounds of our realistic capabilities,” Olmert said.
His successor has had no hint of such second thoughts. Underlying Netanyahu’s cost/benefit assessment is his view that Iran’s leaders are “a messianic apocalyptic cult” who will not be deterred by Israel’s own nuclear weapons capability. “When the wide-eyed believer gets hold of the reins of power and the weapons of mass death, then the entire world should start worrying, and that is what is happening in Iran,” he told the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg in May.
In contrast, Cordesman and Toukan present an Iran that is a rational, if hostile, state, with concrete geopolitical rationales, justified or not, for its perceptions of its nuclear needs. These include “unfriendly neighbors surrounding them, including nuclear tipped Pakistan” just to Iran’s east; the “grave threat to its security” that Iran sees in America’s occupation of Iraq immediately to its west and the presence of the U.S. Fifth Fleet in the Persian Gulf waters lapping its south. This is seen in the context of what was, until recently, America’s declared policy of “regime change,” they note. Finally, say Cordesman and Toukan, Iran’s fear of “Israeli intentions to destabilize Iran and attack its nuclear facilities,” drive it to develop its capabilities all the more.
Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy’s Military and Security Studies Program, said that in the short term, an Israeli attack could create a delay in Iran’s nuclear program. But he warned of the Israeli school of thought that is based on the 1981 attack on Iraq’s nuclear reactor, an attack that, it turned out, put an end to Iraq’s nuclear aspirations. Eisenstadt, who co-authored a June 2008 monograph on this issue with Patrick Clawson, explained that an Israeli operation could not be a one-time strike: “Once you attack once, you are committed to a long-term policy of prevention that will go on for years.” He also cautioned that if Iran obtains a bomb despite Israel’s harsh warnings, or even after an Israeli attack, it will have a negative impact on Israel’s future military deterrence.
Reuel Marc Gerecht of the neoconservative-oriented Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, on the other hand, believes there is no difference between bombing Iran’s nuclear sites and the operations Israel took against similar facilities in Iraq and in Syria. In both cases, he argues, Israel had no assurance that the airstrikes would put an end to the country’s nuclear aspirations, but it still went ahead and launched an attack.
No one has been stronger in rejecting this view than Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak.
“There is no comparison,” he told the Israeli daily Haaretz in late May. “In the Iraqi case, there was one target that existed and was working, and a surgical strike eliminated it…. Here we are up against something far more complex, sophisticated and extensive. The Iranians don’t play backgammon, they play chess, and in fact they invented the game.”
Tellingly, Barak sought to play down the idea promoted by other Israeli leaders, including Netanyahu, that Iran’s overriding motivation in its nuclear drive was an apocalyptic fixation on Israel.
“The Iranian nation is a collection of people held together by an identity that includes the perception of being an empire from the dawn of history,” he said. “Part of their nuclear pretensions have nothing to do with Israel, but with their place in the world and the Orient.”
Voicing a faith in the deterrent capability of Israel’s own nuclear arsenal against Iran that is rarely heard from Israeli leaders, he said, “There is no one who will dare try to destroy Israel.”
Barak’s sharp warning could be seen as an attempt to bridge the current radical disconnect between Israeli public opinion and emergent expert assessments.
In a review of Cordesman and Toukan’s study, Haaretz military correspondent Reuven Pedatzur warned, “It is time to stop waving around the scarecrow of an existential threat and refrain from making belligerent statements.”
Israel’s confident declarations about its ability to reach and attack Iran and “empty promises” about its ability to repel a downpour of missile retaliation “not only do not help bolster Israel’s power of deterrence, but actually undermine the process of building it and making it credible in Iranian eyes,” he said.
Instead, Israel must prepare for the coming day of a hostile Iran’s nuclear capability. “The key, of course, is deterrence. Only a clear and credible signal to the Iranians, indicating the terrible price they will pay for attempting a nuclear strike against Israel, will prevent them from using their missiles.”
Contact Nathan Guttman at guttman@forward.com.
Contact Larry Cohler-Esses at cohleresses@forward.com.
Advertisements
Advertisements
What an extraordinary piece of propaganda.
First, it assumes that the U.S. should not (and will not) first and foremost, undertake the military strikes necessary to severely disable Iran's nuclear weapons program. Prior to Obama's taking power, it was clear that it was the U.S., not Israel, which would for strategic military, geopolitical, security, and regional political reasons, deliver the military strikes. At the end of the Bush administration, the political winds began to shift, but it was still clear that a nuclear Iran was unacceptable. Even Obama, while campaigning for president, claimed that "all options were on the table", strongly implying that the U.S. would not allow Iran to go nuclear. (At some point Jewish Democrats who care deeply about Israel’s security will have to finally admit that they were terribly mislead.)
Second, now that it appears that Israel is being abandoned by its previously staunch friend and ally, the argument is being made to Israel's friends and supporters that, since Israel may be left to its own devices to protect itself from annihilation, to do so would be foolish (and of course to support Israel in doing so would be foolish).
Consider the patently absurd arguments being made: (1) Iran is a "rational" state. (2) Iran's "fear" of Israel's "intentions to destabilize Iran and attack its nuclear facilities" cause it to seek nuclear weapons. (3) "if Iran obtains a bomb despite Israel’s harsh warnings, or even after an Israeli attack, it will have a negative impact on Israel’s future military deterrence". (4) “Once you attack once, you are committed to a long-term policy of prevention that will go on for years.” (Because Iran, unlike Iraq and Syria, is completely undeterable, despite the cost in money, lives, economic development, and physical destruction, from destroying Israel?)
So the appeasers' answer is: Rely on Iran being a "rational" state, which is just fearful of Israel, because if you are unsuccessful in taking out its nukes, it might use them, and if your are successful, you might have to do it again .... And, if Iran does incinerate Israel with just one bomb, at least you will incinerate more of them. (And we all know and trust that the mullahs and Ameanjihad have a deep and abiding reverence and respect for human life, and act "rationally".)
One last very odd argument is that Israel will, "hardly accept the loss of 20% to 30% of its attack aircraft" by "a deadly, ultra-sophisticated Russian anti-aircraft system", in order to prevent its destruction. (That pretty well throws in the kitchen sink.)
We should not forget the oft repeated threat of Iran's responding by instructing Hezbollah and Hamas to launch rockets against Israel, and by closing the Strait of Hormuz. Unfortunately, that makes the case for the recklessness of Iran to begin with. Before the Hezbollah war, there was a question of whether Israel could withstand its full barrage of rockets, but the Israelis proved themselves to be tough and resilient, and the country survived. As to the issue of Iran militarily threatening the free flow of oil, that real possibility cannot be avoided, but it is a fight Iran cannot win for long. In any event, Iran's conventional military threat is certainly no reason to allow it to obtain a nuclear one.
So, the Forward wants the Jewish community to debate the "wisdom" of preventing Iran from going nuclear. The painfully clear similarity to the threats posed by Hitler in the 1930's is stark. Since the risks of failing to act involves the total destruction of the Jewish State of Israel and a second Holocaust, why the propaganda?
Focussing on Iran is meshuggeh. Israel must without further delay bring all of her efforts to bear on a lasting peace with the Palestinians. That and only that will bring lasting security to Israel.
"now that it appears that Israel is being abandoned by its previously staunch friend and ally, the argument is being made to Israel's friends and supporters that, since Israel may be left to its own devices to protect itself from annihilation, to do so would be foolish (and of course to support Israel in doing so"
Israel is our friend ONLY because of what they can get from us and what we have been doing for them for decades. The article makes a lot of sense but of course, Israel is free to do whatever they think is best for them, but they should not expect us to blindly follow their foolish ideas into believing Iran is this horrible enemy hell bent on destroying them, in fact, unlike Israel, Iran has no history of attacking it's neighbors.
Why should we take such a big risk just to make Israel happy, aren't we doing enough for these ingrates already?
it seems that the students of possible israeli [ad]venture against iran are solely concerned about chances of a failing attack. they don't seem to question whether israel is wrong in attacking iran. nor do they mention the fact that the right to bear arms is an universal right.
but what else can we expect from gang members that behave just like biker or mafia gang? i expected more or less just what i read.tnx
Ummm where to begin?! This is fictional thriller-movie stuff.
Iran's nuclear sites are under constant IAEA monitoring. You'd be attacking a perfectly legal, overt, NPT-compliant and IAEA-monitored civilian nuclear facility which has no part in any "weapons" production -- and what use would that be, exactly?
Iran doesn't have "radiological or chemical or biological" missiles to respond to an Israeli attack.
Israel's attack on the Osirak reactor in Iraq was a FAILURE since the Osirak reactor did not put the brakes on Saddam's nuclear weapons program because the reactor that was destroyed could not have produced a bomb on its own and was not even necessary for producing a bomb. The attack only convinced Saddam to speed up his production of the bomb.
For any national state, national defense has no moral dimension. A nation should use military force in aid of three "protections": first, protect its sovereignty on its claimed territory; second, protect the physical persons of its citizens; third, protect national material wealth. Protection of national material wealth includes protection of infrastructure, protection of such property privately held by its citizens as its laws and customs allow, and protection of means of transportation used in commerce, such as its ships and aircraft in international territory. Protection of national wealth also includes enforcement of contracts. All of these considerations are complex and, in particular, involve trade-offs between long-term risks and short term impacts. Consideration of the impact on the citizens of opposing nation-states, and the impact on third parties should be confined to pragmatic considerations of the impact on the three protections, and never on moral grounds. In so far as physically possible, a nation state should never substantially risk the three protections, or take a hot for anything, but, again, there are complex trade-offs between long term risks and short term impacts.
With regard to the matter of Iran, considering the trade-offs, and fully cognizant of the consequences, I advocate obliterating Iran immediately. Better all of them and a lot more besides than even one of us.
In my previous post I said, "In so far as physically possible, a nation state should never substantially risk the three protections, or take a hot for anything, but, again, there are complex trade-offs between long term risks and short term impacts."
That should have read, "In so far as physically possible, a nation state should never substantially risk the three protections, or take a *hit* for anything, but, again, there are complex trade-offs between long term risks and short term impacts."
Howard,
Your attitudes are appalling.
"I advocate obliterating Iran immediately. Better all of them and a lot more besides than even one of us"?
Why exactly are the lives of Iranians any less important than those of Israelis or Americans?
The US and its allies in the Middle East know that there are more immediate and not existential threats from a nuclear Iran.Please consider some matters. During the IraqvsIran war in the 80's the latter was only supported by one neighbor, Syria ruled by the Alawites, a minority, which is a Shia offshoot, while the other neighbors Saudi Arabia, other gulf states, Jordan and especially Kuwait and of course the US supported Iraq. A million souls perished in that war. Iraq used chemical weapons.
Iran's neighbors have either large Shia minorities or even majorities.
In Israel's wars against Hezbollah most Arab states, at times in the open supported Israel.
A nuclear Iran would not be an existential threat to the Arab states but very significant and the Arab states are making it very clear to the US.
It would be a Machiavellian idea that the US would not mind this change in the Middle East calculus, since that would make the Arab states depend even more on the US.
And from what I understand other than Kuwait the other Arab states were not for the current war in Iraq, nor was PM Sharon.
Howard, Frank-
So lets say we 'obliterate' Iran, killing some large number of civilians along with their military and government personnel, leveling their cities to the ground, and forever ending any possibility of them attaining any technology, nuclear or other wise. What then? What do we do now that we've committed genocide in the eyes of much of the rest of the world, and the only way they will see to stop us will be to start their own race for nuclear deterrence. Well, Howard and Frank, would you have us destroy the entire world? When do we stop bleeding ourselves dry trying to put out an ever widening fire with a flamethrower?
This country (the US) has a crippling long-term financial problem, and it is directly related to the costs of maintaining the most powerful standing army in history all over the globe. This project to control the earth must stop before it consumes America's economy and civil liberties forever. Continuing to create new enemies and provoke existing ones (Russia, NK) will only create more military and economic problems for us in the future, thus violating the '3 protections'.
Israel has a long-term demographic problem if it is unwilling to grant the Palestinians a state, the current Israeli government position. The problem in this case lies in that it either must integrate the Palestinians into Israel, creating an Arab majority, continue the current situation of being a 'democracy' that holds several million mostly innocent people prisoner (IE become an apartheid state), or annihilate the Palestinians and or drive them out of the West Bank in an act of ethnic cleansing. The first option is the single way Israel can keep all territory from 1967 and remain a democracy, but rules out Israel remaining a Jewish state, per se - anathema to the Israeli majority, I assume. The second two options to keep the Occupied Territories are clearly madness.
Therefore, the only rational course for Israel to follow is to ensure the viability of a Palestinian state, which necessarily entails removing many of the settlements and barriers established there. Attacking Iran, when as others have pointed out, Iran's actions in the last decades have generally been coldly self-serving, not irrational or apocalyptic, will not assist Israel in solving the Palestinian issue, which presents the biggest 'existential' threat to Israel's future, far more so than Iranian nukes.
The insanity of supporting an Aparthaid state, in the words of former president Carter, for such a long time, has cost America much of its good name among billions. The fact that Israel built its nukes with the aid of many NPT signatories in the West and is not even a signatory to NPT has also voided NPT from much of its moral authority. For how long hypocracy is allowed to degenerate into infections that threaten increasingly the human existence? These are double-standards and hypocritical approaches that is the slime running under the city and create all these evils.
Sorry Frank. My message was intended for Howard Blair. My mistake. I apologize.
Israeli ploicy of bombing and grabbing neighboring real estate is the problem in the mideast.Making an exclusive jewish state of an area inhabitted by mostly non jews is problemetic. This has entailed a captive Palestinian populace under brutal occupation.While South African Apartheied was horrid it did not have the Religious racist undertones of Israel's forty year occupation of the West bank and Gaza. All this is being bankrolled by the unwitting US Taxpayer to the tune of over $10 million per day.A total of *$1.3 Trillion since 1948. Not many countries can have their aviation fuel bill paid for by the American taxppayer as Israel's attack on Lebanon in 2006.An emergency shipment of precision munitions was also delivered for the same war.Israel's f-15's that were bombing Lebanon and it's population into the stone age, also paid for by the Taxpayer. No the US CANNOT tell Israel what not to do!
*Christian Science Monitor
Security of Israel and United States does not lie on creating multi-billion dollar efforts, so called war on terror.........Their security lies only if their so called enemies (which are not enemies !!!) are fully fed and secured. You can not create an empire by wiping out all you enemies,(it has been tried in past and no one has achieved it!!!) you can can create an empire by not occupying your enemies' lands and resources and by learning to live in harmony with yourself and with your enemy.
Let's be clear. Israel has an ongoing highly advanced nuclear weapons program. Iran does not. Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons. Iran has none. Israel has never signed the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. Iran has. Almost daily, Israel threatens Iran with destruction and war. Iran does not. Over the years, Israel has started several wars attacking it's neighbors, killing innocent civilians - women & children, by the hundreds if not the thousands. Iran has not started a war in hundreds of years. Israel imprisons, starves, humiliates and commits crimes against humanity against millions of Palestinians in the concentration camp called Gaza, and in the West Bank. Now what's wrong with this picture? Who are the victims and who are the perpetrators? Who are the terrorists? Iran? The Palestinians? Or could it be Israel? Hhhmmm?
1)There is not a difference between a Palestinian blood and an Israeli or an American blood.
2)Self preservation is the first law of nature. As Israelis continue to arm in order to preserve themselves, so also would the Iranians and others (including the Palestinians)act to preserve themselves.
3)Citizens in any country that have their territory occupied will fight to death in order to liberate their land even with kitchen knives. That explains the resilience of the Palestinians.
4)Nations that have existed for thousands of years have an innate and natural ablilities to survive. e.g. Chinese, Iranians, Egyptians, Jews.
5)Events in middle are being fueled by twisted logic, human greed, unfairness to Palestinians by United Nations, United States etc. Every nation deserves their own territory. The only exception is the Palestinians. For example, If France or Canada were to be occupied, they will be freed by every means available. What about the Palestinians? well they are half human so we don't care. And we are Christians preaching the word of God. Hypocrisy where art thou?
6)We Americans bear every single responsibility for any drop of Palestinian blood being spilled. Our money buys the guns and planes for the Israelis. We are killing them, and God will hold us responsible for that.
7)Iran wil get the nuclear weapon and many Israelis will leave the middle east. For they know the day of reckoning may be near. They have in their conscience and guilty minds, the crimes they have committed against the Palestinians. And they are scared. He who causes the wind will eventually face the whirlwind. Ask Hittler. He killed the Jews and he also died. The Jews are killing the Palestinians, and God is taking notes.
8)The Law of Karma is like the law of Gravitation. You may defy it, but for how long? All those who are clamouring for the death of the Palestinans, and do not care about them being occupied, just consider your household being occupied by a thief and having your wife and children being killed by that thief. Remember, one day it will happen to you.
9)Israelis shoud not call on the world to save them if one day they happen to find themselves as the underdog. Remember, history tend to repeat itself, and they are just 5 million living in the midst of over 300 million Arabs. Let them think very hard on what they are doing and the consequence in the future. For God is watching, and he has an uncanny ability to punish those who punish others
Wow. Reading some of the comments is like taking a trip to Oz. How so many advocate the annihilation of an entire country that has shown no signs of illegality vis a vis it's legal nuclear programme is absolutely amazing. We have no evidence that Iran is building weapons other than the ravings and imagination of a blood thirsty Israeli leadership. What weapons they are building is clearly in response to the years of threats received by the USRael cabal. As pointed out, Iran IS a signatory to the Non Proliferation Treaty while Israel is not. Iran's nuclear facilities are and have been inspected repeatedly. Israel's has never been inspected by outside entities. Finally, I am heartened to see so many rational people reaching the only sane conclusions for peace in the Middle East. Israel MUST stop thier bellicosity towards their neighbors. Stop viewing every other country in the region as an 'existential threat'. And stop trying to enlist US sons and daughters into your illegal and ill advised wars. We have had enough of Israel's blood lust.
I propose that all non-Jewish inhabitants in the so-called 'holy' land (Suez to Euphrates, whatever) should swap their location and possessions with the location and possessions of all those Jews outside the 'holy' land and forbid all further physical group contact. I don't think a separation wall would be necessary. Problem solved!
Please note that security and existence of Isreal, United States and west as whole lies in their own hands.
Do not expect, demand or attack the countries of poor and powerless to hand you over their land and resources.
Treat them like one of your own, help them to develp their own resources like a big brother. They are not your enemies, these poor and poweless countries which you call your enmies are simply defending their land and resources from attacker and occupiers.
Israel and Iran can slug it out to their hearts' content. Just don't involve the US. Before starting anything, Israel, please send us a check (with interest) for all our past aid. We can feed and house our own homeless and dispossessed. Pres. Obama should make it clear that Israel is no longer (if ever) an indispensable ally and they are on their own, just like the USS Liberty was in 1967.
What nucler program? IAEA has cleared Iran of trying to make nuclear weapons. But could you blame them? ISRAEL IS the nuclear threat to everyone in the ME. Didn't sign the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. Israel is clearly the beligerant.
Gee, maybe Israel should just destroy the entire world---all these "goyim" are just in the way of "God's chosen people," aren't we?!
Disgusting. More excuses for "pre-emptive" war to suit the needs of the war-mongering neo-con elitists who run both Israel and the U.S.
Who has Iran attacked or occupied in the last century? No one! Now stop and ask the same question of ISRAEL. It's clear who the war-monger and illegal occupier is---ISRAEL. They practically INVENTED terrorism in the region----bombing of the King David hotel which killed innocent Brits in the 40s, anyone remember that?! The American media, run by a very few corporations (most of which are owned by Jews), likes to constantly remind us of Holocaust, Holocaust, Holocaust, Nazis, Nazis, Nazis, as if that's the only important piece of history,
Wrong. Israel is a failed state, a sham "democracy" that treats non-Jews as 2nd class citizens, and which wouldn't even EXIST were it not for the $3 BILLION dollars of U.S. tax-payers' money that is pumped into Israel EVERY YEAR.
Israel is a sociopathic war-monger whose identity has become synonymous with continual claims of persecution and victimhood, and which then seeks to "pre-emptively" attack all its neighbors and then feign surprise when the region is scared of Israel.
Israel is a pathetic excuse for a nation, and its neo-con leaders only put their innocent Jewish citizenry in MORE danger by saber-rattling and war provocation. The state of Israel has made the world MORE dangerous for Jews, not safer! Israel is truly a failed state.
There will be no peace in the middle East as long as Israel is in a position to continue its beligerent attacks and intimidation of the Palestinians on whose land they settled illegally and their neighbours whose land and water resourxes they covet.
Israel was and is a "nation" steeped in the blood of their victims while they claim to be the poor victims. Israel is a nation built on lies and usurpation, even to the point of desecrating their own co religionists by constantly invoking the alleged Holocaust as being their excuse to run rampant over other people.
Peace will come to the Middle East, one hopes, when and ONLY when Israhell is no more as a nation, although the Jews there who want to live in peace can do so in Palestine.
60 years of abject misery and inhuman treatment of the Palestinians by the Israeli's..... enough is enough!
I would very much like to thank the Jewish Daily FORWARD for allowing comments to be published that are very anti Israel, unkike other places that sensor anything said against Israel.
You are honourable and I thank you for that, even though it must be difficult for you.
this is not an analysis but an argument - it puts forward all the reasons NOT to attack iran's nuclear facilities.
but for each argument, there is an equally compelling counter-argument, namely that to do nothing will result in the certainty of a nuclear-armed iran, combined with its ballistic missile capability.
on balance, one side offers a chance of failure (or success), while the other offers only failure (capitulation to a nuclear iran). it's not really much to choose from, but this article is on the wrong side of the balance.
There is no future for the Israel in the Middle East, and Israel cannot survive more than 24 hours without the American help. Therefore, it is about time to relocate Israel to Belize in Central America, which it was the orignial plan for a home land for the jews. We in America are tired of Israel draging us to conflicts with l.5 billion muslims around world, and the American jewes have to decide they are Americans or Israelies.
It is very hypicrtical of the Iranian government champaining the cuase of the muslims, at the same time supporting christain Armania against the muslim Azerbaijan, while the Armanians are occupying 20% of the Azerbaijan's land.
Why is it that Iranian government has put 85000 young Azeri Turks in jail just because they are asking for teaching their language in their schools, and knowing the fact that 46% of the population of Iran are Azeri Turks, which is 32 million, and the Persian population is only 22% which is l4 million.
I’m new to Forward and it has already won my highest respect. It is difficult these days to find a free forum for the expression of ideas, and Forward is one rare, free forum. Those Zionists who don’t have the stomach to read what others think of them, have their heads in the sand.
Even Common Dreams.com would block some of the stuff that I read here. Forward is definitely appreciated by those who value the freedom of expression.
The purpose of an Israeli attack on Iran is to obscure the internal crisis in the country. Israel's economy is subsidized by the US and by contributions made a those few American Jews and Zionist non Jews ( Many of these are anti-Jewish in the US). The issue is there is a country named Israel and there is not a country named Palestine.As long as this exist there can be no peace in the region. We can not roll back what capital imperialism and Soviet opportunism created. The issue of nuclear proliferation can only be solved by the US beginning the process with Russia of nuclear disarming. This and climate change are the key to our survival as species. Zionist history reveals that they sought a state anywhere and sought alliances with German and British imperialist before and during WWI.Those who emigrated to Palestine after WWI came to a land of settled nation of Palestinians. They bought land from Palestinian well off rich Palestinians and displaced the low paid farmers. This set the stage for today's conflict. Iran seeks not the destruction of Israel but wishes to see the abolition of Zionist expansionist ideology. I believe as an American Jew that Zionism has not solved the anti-Jewishness that exist in our country nor in the world, it exacerbates it. To be critical of Israel is not equated with anti-Jewishness. Nor is to be critical of US policy to be construed as anti American peoples.
In 1933 Hitler tore up the Versailles treaty and with it began the decline and eventual demise of the League of Nations - that same international organization which in 1922 recognized the "historic connexion" giving Jews the legal right to return and resettle the "Jewish National Home" in Palestine. But the United States never joined the League and hence gave Mussolini, Hitler, Tojo and Stalin the room to expand their empires by force without fearing the mighty United States which had decided to retreat back into "Fortress America" and to let the rest of the world burn from afar. But only until it finally came to bite the US itself, and by that time the US was just lucky it had the time to rearm and eventually turn the tide. But it even took some Jewish scientists working feverishly at Los Alamos to develop the ultimate weapon that finally brought Japan to its knees and thereby saved 300,000 American GI lives who thankfully did not have to fight their way town by town and street by street all the way up into Tokyo. Today, the leaders of Iran and North Korea are busy acquiring power that Hitler could only have dreamed of. Thankfully, the Jewish people now have a sovereign territory to defend themselves within and the means to bring massive destruction on its enemies if it comes to that. While they have not yet officially torn up the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that has kept proliferation under control till now, it's getting close. Faced by the worst Depression since the 1930s, the American people seek to delude themselves yet again and retreat yet again back into "Fortress America" which they hope will keep them safe. But once Iran and South Korea have accumulated the number of bombs and long range missiles they need to keep everyone else at bay, how long will it be before other potentially rogue states, such as Venezuela or Cuba also gain access to them?
In the 1930s, Hitler gained some sympathy from liberals who justified his tearing up the Versailles treaty on the basis that the provisions of the Peace Treaty had been "unfair" to Germany, giving him just the cover he needed to proceed to rearm Germany while the impotent democracies looked on passively. Today we have some liberals who justify Iran's actions because Israel has its own undeclared nuclear deterrent and so Iran is ostensibly surrounded by other nuclear powers and so that is inherently "unfair." Britain had many warships, so why shouldn't Germany have the right to them? And so the arguments of the 1930s, just like the depression itself, appear to be repeating themselves yet again. Only this time the weapons being forged make anything the Germans and Japanese had in 1940 pale by comparison. But Israel must not let itself be sacrificed as were the Jews of Europe while these pundits play their word games. The Iranian leadership has long declared Israel as its mortal enemy and a target for annihilation. Some liberal American Jews, like some liberal German Jews in the early 1930s, may think it will all blow over and no harm will come to them. I hope they are correct, but can Israel afford to take that chance? To survive, or not to survive. That is the question.
Saila,
"Forward is definitely appreciated by those who value the freedom of expression."
Apparently Forward doesn't value freedom of expression all that much, since it deleted posts by Leonard Eisenstein and me for no good reason. I didn't like what Leonard had to say but I don't think it should have been deleted.
From the "real" Frank:
For anyone who is understandably confused by the virulent antisemitic post by a faux "Frank", above - it was not from me. I am the "real" Frank, whose post first follows the article, above, and begins with, "What an extraordinary piece of propaganda."
It is instructive to see how many virulent Jew-hating posts appear on the "Jewish" Forward web site. It is reflective of the numerous far-left anti-Israel "news stories","columns" and editorials published by the Forward. "Anti-Zionism" is the new incarnation of antisemitism, the Forward is a willing participant, hosting this hatefest. But the worst of it is that the Forward publishes propaganda intended to weaken American Jews' support for Israel. I believe that the reporting of this article is such an example. A few observations:
First, the article is subtitled, "Chance of Success Is Dubious, While Risks Are Overwhelming".
Second, while it is "co-authored", only one author is highlighted, with a huge smiling picture, "Cordesman: Former McCain adviser co-authored report". The only credentials identified for him is that he was (for a short time) a "McCain advisor", as if that one bullet-point bestows credibility. But what of the primary author of this report? What of Abdullah Toukan? Is he an unbiased "analyst"? Where is his big smiling picture, with his pithy credentials?
ABDULLAH TOUKAN: It appears he is the REAL author, and that Cordesman provides political cover. For those who want to actually read the "Study", here is the link to the actual "Study", which shows Toukan as the author: http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/090316_israelistrikeiran.pdf
Toukan is a former "Minister" in the government of Jordan, described as "Science Advisor" to King Hussein of Jordan. He has been a high-level Jordanian government security operative, and he is obviously not simply a disinterested, neutral, "scholar", but an active political player:
...
"He has been the head of the Jordanian Middle East Peace Negotiations Delegation to the Multilateral Arms Control and Regional Security Working Group, and a member of the Jordanian Bilateral Middle East Peace Negotiations Delegation in the Jordanian-Israeli Peace Negotiations, dealing with Borders, Territorial Matters, and Security. Dr. Toukan has written a number of articles on issues related to arms control and regional security in the Middle East region. He received his Ph.D. in theoretical nuclear physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology."
...
Toukan's "Study" is not only a "military" one, but an unqualified "political" one. Presumably, Israel and the U.S. have as much and more information and analysis of the military options available, and neither will be informed by this "Study".
So, what is the PURPOSE of the "Study"? It is a conclusory, unqualified, "POLITICAL" analysis which argues against the military destruction of Iran's nuclear weapons program, in favor of "containment". "Containment" means allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. The "Political" conclusions are not supported by the "military" analysis, and are therefore PROPAGANDA.
The "Study" also argues (without any factual support), the absurd argument now being mouthed by Obama: ... "In fact, it is believed in the region that Peace Agreements with the Palestinians and Arab Countries would deprive Iran of any political context in which to confront Israel." ... This propaganda argument, linking the "palestinian" issue with Iran, as though Iran will not annihilate Israel if it makes "peace" with the "palestinians", is patently absurd.
It should also be noted Iran has reportedly copied and disbursed thousands of copies of this "Study" and is using them to analyze and prepare its nuclear program and its defenses against possible attack. Since both Israel and the U.S. presumably have all the information (and much more) contained in this "Study", it appears that its preparation and publication is primarily for Political purposes, and is useful to Iran.
With reference to the military analysis, note the following article from Toukan, in May, 2008, where he concluded that:
"... Iran’s air defense network could be easily penetrated by the air forces of Israel and the United States. The Washington-based center said Iran’s aging U.S.- and Russian-origin assets could not intercept Israeli F-15 and F-16 fighters.
“Iran lacks the modern weapon systems, integration and C4I battle management to reduce the potential destructive effectiveness of any offensive interdiction missions by Israel,” the report, titled “Study on a Possible Israeli Strike on Iran’s Nuclear Development Facilities,” said. “One can predict a very low attrition rate to an Israeli strike.”
http://www.commandtheraven.com/2009/05/08/report-without-russian-air-defense-system-iran-is-sitting-duck/
...
In contrast to the Forward's defeatist "spin", the description of the "Study" by Debka.com concludes:
...
"Israel's Air & Missile Forces Could Wipe out Iran's Nuclear Sites
For the past three years, US military and intelligence sources have used attributed and leaked assessments to the American media to emphasize that such an operation is beyond Israel's capabilities because of the nuclear facilities' wide distribution across Iran. At best, they maintained, the Israeli Air Force might knock out a few Iranian nuclear installations, but only enough to put Iran's nuclear drive temporarily on hold.
The CSIS paper refutes this assessment and maintains there is no need to destroy dozens or hundreds of sites; the destruction of seven to nine targets would be enough to cripple the Iranian program, and lists them ... .
Complicated tables set forth an array of technical details showing how many PG bombs Israeli Air Force F16I or F15F bomber-fighter planes can carry, how much fuel is needed to reach their Iranian targets, and at what stage of their return journey they would need to refuel.
This think tank finds Israel has enough aircraft as well as the necessary intelligence and electronic resources for the task - contrary to previous estimates." http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1386
...
According to Toukan's "Study":
...
There have been reports that Russia secretively supplied Iran with the ANTEY-2500 Mobile SAM System/S-300V (SA-12 Giant). If this is the case then the whole analytic model beginning from C4I Early Warning to Response and Scramble times in the engagement of Israeli combat aircraft with this integrated mobile air defense system will have to be recalculated.
...
THEREFORE, the wild card, and "game changer", is Russia's sale and delivery to Iran of its "S-300 air defense system", the "ultra-sophisticated Russian anti-aircraft system" described by Toukan. It is not made clear if and when the "S-300" system is or will be operational, but it has been described as a "game changer", and is the basis of Toukan's assessment of Israel's expected loss of aircraft (if aircraft as opposed to missiles are used).
IN SUMMARY: There are perhaps two immediately impending time deadlines: (1) the point of no return for Iran's nuclear weapons program, and (2) the effective deployment of Russia's S-300 system. Israel HAS to act before either takes place.
This is an enormously perilous time for Jews. Iran threatens nuclear annihilation and a second Holocaust. American foreign policy is in the hands of the most anti-Israel administration since Israel was born, which is engaged in a broad-based attack on Israel. Israel needs American Jews to strongly support it in its hour of need.
"Jewish" publications like the Forward should not be actively seeking to undermine that support by publishing this kind of anti-Israel propaganda.
Iran is moving steadfastly toward acquiring the capability to make nuclear weapons. Last month it successfully test-fired a solid-fuel missile with a range of 1,200 miles – a weapons delivery system able to reach most countries in the Middle East and some in Europe. The world does not have a lot of time to prevent Iran, the world's largest state sponsor of terror, from getting these weapons. It will take the will of key countries to stop Iran. Following are twelve ideas – carrots and sticks – that can be used to persuade Iran’s leaders that it is in their interest to end Iran’s nuclear weapons program and support of terror – without military action or regime change. All peaceful means must be used; at the same time, all options should be left on the table. Nothing would be more dangerous than Iran with nuclear weapons.
1. Cut off the sale of gasoline to Iran: The biggest stick the international community can wield remains Iran’s dependence on imported gasoline. Iran has not developed enough capacity to refine its crude oil into gasoline. It therefore imports 40 percent of the gasoline it needs – almost all of it from Swiss, Dutch, French, British and Indian companies. When Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rationed gasoline during the summer of 2007, violent protests broke out, forcing him to end the rationing. These European and Indian governments should stop companies based in their countries from selling gasoline to Iran.
2. Ban investments in Iran’s energy sector: In addition to cutting off gasoline sales, the international community, led by the United Sates, should provide incentives to foreign banks and companies to eliminate investments in Iran’s energy sector. This would prevent foreign oil companies from investing in Iran’s oil industry.
3. Eliminate the purchase of oil from Iran: Iran derives an estimated 85 percent of its revenue from its oil sales. Iran's leaders use oil revenues to subsidize heavily the prices of gasoline, food, housing and other necessities. Clearly, a severe reduction in these revenues would have a strong impact on Iran’s people and leaders.
4. Sustain international pressure on foreign banks and oil companies to halt their dealings with Iran's energy sector: International pressure on foreign banks and oil companies already has led major firms worldwide, such as Germany's Deutsche Bank and Commerzbank, England's HSBC, Credit Suisse and Royal Dutch Shell, to halt or limit their business with Iran.
5. Freeze Iranian bank assets and impose sanctions on Iranian entities linked to its nuclear program: In June 2008, all of the EU's 27 member states agreed to freeze any assets held in their jurisdictions by Bank Melli, Iran's largest state-owned bank which has been labeled a nuclear proliferator by the EU, US and Australia for its role in Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile program. In March 2009, the US Treasury Department imposed sanctions on 11 companies linked to Bank Melli. In February 2009, officials from France, Britain and Germany issued a list of 34 Iranian entities allegedly linked to Iran’s nuclear or biological weapons programs. Measures such as these must be broadened.
6. End World Bank contributions to Iran: In 2008 millions of dollars in financial guarantees were provided to Iran’s industrial and natural gas sectors through the World Bank's Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA). The international community should demand that future MIGA outlays not end up in Iranian hands.
7. Stop pipeline deals with Iran: There are a number of major pipeline deals with Iran that will enable Tehran to transfer and sell natural gas to Europe. The Nabucco pipeline and others, worth billions of dollars, would seriously erode the impact of economic sanctions that could halt Iran’s nuclear program.
8. Halt arms sales to Iran: Because Iran’s missile defense system is antiquated, Tehran seeks to purchase advanced weapons systems. Media reports at the end of 2008 indicate that Russia signed an agreement to sell its S-300 air-defense missiles, among the most sophisticated in the world, to Iran. Later reports state that Russia has decided not to sell this system to Iran. One speculated reason is that Iran could not make payments. Iran’s acquiring this system would significantly change the military balance in the Middle East.
9. Deny shipping insurance to companies helping Iran: UN Security Council Resolution 1803 calls on all states to "exercise vigilance" with regard to companies that do business with Iran in order to avoid financing Iran's proliferation activities. The resolution specifically cautions states to be wary of granting insurance to businesses trading with Iran. It also focuses on export credits and loan guarantees. Insurance companies could increase the cost of doing business in or with Iran by reassessing their rates in view of Iran’s questionable stability. Transit insurance could also be raised for ships and merchandise passing through Iran.
10. Intelligence: Gathering accurate and actionable intelligence about Iran’s nuclear program is key to preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. The international community, led by the United States, should intensify its efforts at gathering such intelligence, upgrade the tools and facilitate greater cooperation among the world’s intelligence organizations.
11. Divestment: American states and investors are taking the lead in incorporating “terror-free” investing principles to remove a source of income from Tehran’s leaders. Governments and investors around the world should pursue similar principles in their investment strategies.
12. Impose inspections and restrictions on Iranian goods and officials: Stringent inspections of items entering or leaving Iran should be carried out, and strict international travel prohibitions should be imposed on Iranian officials, except for nuclear negotiators
TO THE "JEWISH" FORWARD:
With the Forward's anti-Israel "news", "columns" and editorials, is it any surprise that your site serves as a hatefest for antisemites (anti-Israel non-Jews and ersatz "Jews")?
Just look at the posts to this story:
23 anti-Israel antisemitic posters.
3 pro-Israel posters.
2 anti-Iran (for unrelated reasons) posters.
(Since you deleted my previous post identifying each of the above posters, I have not named them, but we all can see who they are.)
TO JEWISH FORWARD READERS WHO SUPPORT THE JEWISH STATE OF ISRAEL: Pay attention to the substance, tone and bias of what the Forward publishes, and ask yourselves:
What is the Forward's mindset? Is it what you expect from a "Jewish" publication, aimed at American Jews who naturally care for the welfare of the Jewish State of Israel? Why this story? Why told in this way? Why this columnist? What is the subtext of this editorial?
Yea sure Mr Cordesman analysis is propaganda! Bush and his gang are history now.Mad Dick Cheney was all geared up to launch an atack on Iran to please his zionist.neocon masters. It is to the credit of Chinese leaders who put a stop to this mad adventure al Menachem Begin in Iraq.
General Charles DeGaulle said it will ultimately be impossible for Israel to survive in a sea of Arabs. Demographically, Israel is already doomed. Since it's creation in 1948, it has been an increasingly destabilizing roadblock to world peace. It has never negotiated peace in good faith with the Palestinians. It controls U.S. Middle East policy through the political contributions of Jews to candidates for public office in the U.S. This is obviously an outrage of immense proportions but we seem helpless to do anything about it. The fate of the U.S. will largley be determined by how we handle the Middle East disaster that Israel has created for us. Consequently, our only hope is abandon the Israeli fanatics and act in the interest of the United States. This will require that we stop treating Jewish power brokers in this country like delicate crystal and subject them to the same public scrutiny and criticism accorded to all other political factions.
The Jewish people are doing unto others what Hittler did to them. They will definitely reap what they are sowing. It is written in the Bible that the fathers have eaten sour graves, and the children teeth have been set on edge. The Jewish are eating sour grapes, and their childrens teeth will ultimately be set on edge. The Jewish people will get their punishment. It will come through the hands of God,or somebody will be appointed by God. You cannot continue to kill, maim, mutilate and harm children, women and the aged and continue to claim the moral high ground. the land of America belongs to Americans, Canada's land belongs to Canadians, Africa belongs to Africans, the Palestinian lands belong to Palestinians. Occupation will only bring death and destruction to the Jewish state. Mark my words. There has never been any country that has occupied another country and did not get kicked out. Palestinians are struggling today, but by God's grace, they will overcome. South Africans did overcome.
UPDATE:
Make that 26 anti-Israel antisemitic posters.
Here's a story about the delivery by the Russians to Iran of its S-300 system, described in Toukan's "Study". Presumably the intelligence services of Israel and the U.S. have information concerning the present operational status of the system. We can only pray that its not too late to effectively cripple the mullahs' nuclear weapons program before they incinerate Tel Aviv, and that the U.S. will act promptly, or worse case scenario, at least will do nothing to attempt to hinder or block Israel from preventing a second Holocaust.
Page 1: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/from-russia-with-love-iran-gets-top-air-defense-system/
Page 2 (particularly interesting): http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/from-russia-with-love-iran-gets-top-air-defense-system/2/
Iran's air defense systems may be formidable, especially if Iran has received and deployed Russian systems. It may also be true that Israels current war planes would have a difficult task reaching their targets.
However, the fact of the matter is that the US has a weapons system fully capable of thwarting Iran (or Russias) most advanced anti aircraft systems--the F22 RAPTOR!
Americas fleet of F22 RAPTORS are deployed--and ready for action.
I do NOT advocate a US strike on Iran. Frankly, I'm not convinced its Americas war. However, I don't see why the US could not equip Israel with F22 RAPTORS.
Granted the F22 RAPTORS would only succeed if they hit the correct targets--which is an intel matter. Neither would the F22 RAPTORS prevent "harsh military and destabilizing geopolitical consequences seem overwhelming"--though they could certainly mitigate them :)
Bottom line; Americans should NOT be dictating to Israel what they should or should not do in the face of an existential threat. If Israel feels backed into a corner by the Iran nuke threat--America should provide Israel with the tools (F22 RAPTORS) necessary to defend herself.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.