Jibamahad Middle-East Policy –
Red Light or green light for Israel to attack Iran? Running the light (no matter the color) based on Israel’s need is the only option Israel has.
From Atlas Shrugs:
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
The international community’s zeal to take down the Jews comes back to bite them in the ass. Obama has distributed 300 million (of a promised 900 million) to Gaza. Why?
European Al Qaeda members received training in Gaza (hat tip Rut)
An Egyptian newspaper reported this week that several European members of an Al Qaeda cell recently busted in Egypt received training and financing from Palestinian terror groups in the Gaza Strip….Continue Reading
Published: July 6, 2009 at 1:30 PM
Iran is driving to produce up to 1,000 long-range ballistic missiles with a range of 1,550 miles, as well as 500 mobile launchers, over the next six years, according to Israeli military experts.
“The Iranians are making great efforts to obtains a significant number of missiles,” according to Tal Inbar, head of the Space Research Center near Tel Aviv.
“They already talk of how one of the ways they will overcome (Israel’s) missile defense systems is by firing salvoes of missiles.”
Iran’s current production capabilities are not known with any great exactitude, but these have been concerned primarily with the manufacture of Shehab-3 intermediate range ballistic missiles.
The Israelis, who see Iran’s nuclear and missile programs as an existential threat, claim that Iran’s missile development is more advanced than the West believes.
At present, the liquid-fueled Shehab is the mainstay of the Islamic Republic’s strategic missile forces. Tehran is believed to have deployed 100-200 of these weapons, which have an estimated range of 1,250 miles….Continue Reading
From the JewishJournal.Com comes this thoughtful article:
July 7, 2009 | 9:52 am
Posted by Rob Eshman
Sweep every other geopolitical question aside: the biggest issue facing the world right now is Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
Why? Because the repercussions of Iran’s unstopped push toward the development of nuclear weapons and their delivery system may include imminent war, a massive disruption in oil supplies, world economic collapse (that is, another one), massive human casualties—all of which may happen sooner rather than later.
Those who care about this issue fall into two camps. The Right Nows, who want to, um, attack right now; and the Not Yets, who while reserving the possibility of military force, believe the time is not right, and other more peaceful options may still work…
…As Clinton said on Tuesday, Iran has “a huge credibility gap” because of its electoral fraud. Second, given Iran’s nuclear progress, even if the stronger sanctions Obama has threatened could be agreed upon, they would not prevent Iran from fabricating weapons and delivery systems when it chooses, as it has been striving to do for the past 20 years. Time is too short, and sanctions failed long ago….
…And anyone who believes the Revolutionary Guard Corps will abandon its weaponization and ballistic missile programs probably believes that there was no fraud in Iran’s June 12 election. See “huge credibility gap,“ supra….
…With regime change off the table for the coming critical period in Iran’s nuclear program, Israel’s decision on using force is both easier and more urgent. Since there is no likelihood that diplomacy will start or finish in time, or even progress far enough to make any real difference, there is no point waiting for negotiations to play out. In fact, given the near certainty of Obama changing his definition of “success,“ negotiations represent an even more dangerous trap for Israel….
…Significantly, the uprising in Iran also makes it more likely that an effective public diplomacy campaign could be waged in the country to explain to Iranians that such an attack is directed against the regime, not against the Iranian people. This was always true, but it has become even more important to make this case emphatically, when the gulf between the Islamic revolution of 1979 and the citizens of Iran has never been clearer or wider. Military action against Iran’s nuclear program and the ultimate goal of regime change can be worked together consistently….
…The cost of error could be fatal.
The Not-So-Fast group believe that while a military option should remain in force, exercising it now would be a huge mistake.
To them, the unrest in Iran PROVES that the military option would be worse….
…As Yair Lapid writes in Yediot, the Israeli newspaper:
It will take weeks, maybe months, before we know where Iran is heading….
The collapse of the Ayatollah regime is, of course, everything Israel could ever hope for. We are not only talking about the nuclear issue, but also about much more immediate gains: Hizbullah will dry up, Hamas will lose its main source of strength, and Syria’s backdoor will slam shut.
However, everything happening at Tehran’s Azadi Square – the amazing coming together of young people, Internet culture, social ferment, and woman power – would not have happened had we listened to the regular bunch of hysterical screamers around here and attempted to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites….
…What would have happened then? Exactly what happens around here during times of war: The Iranian public would have rallied around the leadership, a wave of patriotic fury would have swept through the whole of Iran, and Ahmadinejad would not have needed to resort to any fraud in order to defeat the reformists….
…It’s a tough call Continue Reading this Excellent Article
“It will take weeks, maybe months, before we know where Iran is heading.”
More than 3 weeks have passed. Too bad Obama did not support the reformists/students with more force and effort. I’m afraid the only chance the Iranians have now of achieving more freedom is if Israel comes to their aid. I have to agree with Mr Bolton when he says:
…“the uprising in Iran also makes it more likely that an effective public diplomacy campaign could be waged in the country to explain to Iranians that such an attack is directed against the regime, not against the Iranian people.”
Obama turned his back to the Iranian reformers when they needed his support the most.
Then came the crisis in Honduras, Obama quickly took the side of the ousted President (supported by Chavez and Castro) who was unilaterally trying to change the Honduran Constitution. I guess Obama can sympathize with someone trying to unilaterally change a Constitution for his own benefit. (That pesky “Natural Born Citizen” clause in the U.S. Constitution probably keeps Obama awake at night.)
Netanyahu needs to refuse to be bullied and step up to call Obama out while there is still time.