Will Israel Attack Iran’s Nuclear Facilities in 2008?
We've been so busy with credit crunches, falling house prices and rising oil prices lately that the thorny question of what to do about Iran - either leave them to their own devices or stage a pre-emptive strike to put back their nuclear programme - has drifted off the front pages. Recently, Iran has insisted that it will continue with its nuclear programme although it is not seeking nuclear weapons... (according to the BBC story, anyway). Former German Foreign Minister, Joschka Fischer, offers his analysis in this story from RGE Monitor Will Israel Attack Iran’s Nuclear Facilities Before the End of the Bush Administration? Joschka Fischer Argues Yes Nouriel Roubini | Jun 2, 2008 I had the pleasure to meet and speak at length over the weekend with Joschka Fischer, former Foreign Minister of Germany and one of the deepest geo-strategic thinkers in the world. He argued with me that – as he fleshed out in a a recent article he wrote for the Project Syndicate – Israel will attack Iran’s nuclear facilities before the end of the Bush administration and that Israel effectively received the green light to this action from Bush during his recent visit to Israel. Fischer was recently in Israel to attend the celebrations for the 60th anniversary of Israel creation. A variety of factors and conversations – fleshed out in his article – have led him to the conclusion that Israel will attack Iran before the end of the Bush administration. This is just an opinion of one – however influential and well-connected – observer; but the arguments that Fischer makes on why Israel may go ahead sound compelling. We certainly don’t know if Israel will act that early – and certainly Israel has signaled that it will not accept an Iran that is nuclear - but let us consider the economic and financial consequences of such action. First, even before Iran may try to retaliate to this action by trying to block the flow of oil from the Gulf, oil prices would spike above $200 dollar a barrel. Second, Iran could react militarily to such Israeli action (that would be taken with the tacit support and the military logistic support of the US) by unleashing its supporters in Iraq against the US military forces there. That would trigger a military reaction by the US that would start a sustained air-led bombing campaign against Iran’s military capabilities (air force, anti-aircraft defenses, radar and other military installations, etc.) Third, Iran would unleash its supporters in Lebanon and Gaza (Hezbollah and Hamas) in a military confrontation with Israel. A broader war will follow in the Middle East. Fourth, Iran would use both the threat of blocking the flow of oil out of the Gulf and an actual sharp reduction of its exports of oil (an embargo) to spike the price of oil. Oil prices would rapidly rise above $200 per barrel and the US and global economy would spin into a severe stagflationary recession (like those triggered by the sharp spikes in the prices of oil following the staflationary shocks of the Yom Kippur war in 1973, the Iranian revolution in 1979 and the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990). Fifth, while Sunni regimes may – in private – sigh relief following the destruction of the nuclear capabilities of the Shiite Iranian regime – the Sunni Arab street (the masses of poor Sunnis) from Algeria to Egypt and all the way to Pakistan, India and Indonesia may become even more anti-Western and anti-American leading to the risk over time of rise of anti-Western fundamentalist regimes in many Arab countries. Sixth, the Bush administration whose hands have been tied by the new National Intelligence Estimate (that argued that Iran had suspended its program of development of nuclear weapons) would thus be able to strike Iran – via Israel - before the end of its term. Such October surprise by Israel would also certainly lead to the election of McCain and defeat of Obama as a national security crisis of such an extent would doom the chances of Democrats to win the White House. So both Israel – that prefers McCain to Obama and is hurried to act as it is wary of the constraints that an Obama presidency may put on its ability to act against Iran – and the Bush administration would guarantee the election of McCain. Now, it is not certain – as argued by Fischer – that Israel will strike that early; this is just a guess and a prediction by one observer even if many others think likewise. But if such action were to be taken by Israel the consequences outlined above would be the clear outcome: a major global recession, wars throughout the Middle East (Iran, Iraq, Gaza, Lebanon, Israel, etc.) and a major increase in geopolitical instability.

"all possible means" - this is probably Israel's most forceful warning yet - from the BBC Israeli warning over nuclear Iran Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has said Iran's nuclear programme must be stopped by "all possible means". Speaking during a visit to Washington, he said Tehran must be made to see it would suffer devastating repercussions if it pursued atomic weapons. The US and others have accused Iran of building a nuclear arms capability. Tehran says its programme is peaceful. Mr Olmert's US visit comes as he faces pressure at home over corruption allegations, which he denies. "The Iranian threat must be stopped by all possible means," Mr Olmert said in his speech before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee - a lobby group. "The international community has a duty and responsibility to clarify to Iran, through drastic measures, that the repercussions of their continued pursuit of nuclear weapons will be devastating," he added.

Bear one thing in mind, Bush is irrelevant. The powers are behind the throne, not on it and those powers will still be there when Bush is a fading memory, like on January 16th next year. The US and Israel will attack Iran when it most suits them. If Obama and Clinton, which is looking a little more likely than it did a couple of weeks ago, get into the White House and look as though they might damage the real power then that would be the time to attack Iran, through Israel, to show how weak and ineffective the new government is. Americans cannot now conceive of themselves of anything other than the world's controlling power and for a 'maverick' Israel to attack Iran without official presidential sanction would be a massive blow against the presidency. For Bush to go to war now would be stupid and irrational. He is already a dead duck, there is nothing at all that he, or his controllers, could gain out if it, but a new administration is a different ball game. No, they will keep their powder dry at least until 2009.

The Guardian covers the la-*test*-('") bout of sabre-rattling here. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/04/israelandthepalestinians.usa I find it odd that Israel's aggression (la-*test*-('") attack against Syria, for instance) can be so rewarded (more missiles and warplanes from the US on their way), when if Iran even sounds half-belligerent it is taken as a declaration of war. How odd!

The last time I looked, Iran was quite some distance from Israel, whereas Syria is joined, the two countries will always be treated differently - a bit of long distance argy-bargy is not as meaningful as 'in-your-face' with the immediate threat of violence. Iran is not capable, currently, of attacking Israel as it cannot get there by sea or land and any airborne assault would be terminated in short order by the Americans in Iraq, therefore the verbals are, largely, nothing more than that from both sides who are simply shadow boxing with intent.

If Iran did decide to come over the border again, the US would need far more troops. They cannot even contain Dubya's pathetic excuse for "Democratic Peace"! Any hostile attack on Iran, or indeed any other ME Islamic state would heal the rifts between the Shi'a and the Sunni and they would stand together against the Great Satan. If Israel, rapidly now becoming a pariah state, was foolish enough to deploy its nuclear capability, Russia - which of course enjoys a long border with Iran - would be straight in on the action. As probably would China; most interesting to note the comments made in the media this week by the Chinese government minister in charge of Chinese military matters and how China also sees the USA as the probable de-stabilising global power and the power most likely to trip a space war. China, BTW now has the capability to knock down satellites and other space vehicles and Mr Wun Tianfu the head of China's Nuclear Weaponry Corps, stated that "Weaponisation of outer space is already unstoppable". The never-ending arrogance of America, since it's in the midst of total fiscal, economic and currency collapse never ceases to amaze me. Particularly so, considering Iran supplies much of both Japan and China's oil and any further destabilisation of the ME is pretty much guaranteed to collapse what's left of the US economy, due to its over-reliance on imported ME crude.

If Iran did decide to come over the border again, the US would need far more troops. If Iran came over the border again there would be no need for troops. It would be all the excuse they would need to launch a nuclear strike on Tehran. The US isn't going to get any oil from Iran so there's nothing to lose in that regard. Finding WMD wouldn't be the issue, preventing them ever being built would be and it would be "Goodnight Ayatollah!"

So it's hello, Nuclear Holocaust then?

Oh that's probably more likely now than at any time since 1962. Why else do you think that the US wants the umbrella?

Not much ambiguity about this, from the BBC Israeli minister threatens Iran A top Israeli official has said that if Iran continues with its alleged nuclear arms programme, Israel will attack it. Speaking to Yediot Ahronot newspaper, Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz said sanctions on Iran were ineffective

Pretty much to the point. Do you think that Ahmedinejad will shout to a crowd in Tehran "BRING IT ON!"?

"Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world." President Ahmadinejad, 26th October 2005. Jack, If you consider the above statement to only be "half belligerant", then I would hate to think what you consider a fully belligerant statement to be. How about "wipe Israel off the map twice"? Would that count?

Here's a good article about Ahmadinejad, the return of the 13th Madhi, and a possible nuclear holocaust: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=BZ43B440BTK1VQFIQMGSFFWAVCBQWIV0?xml=/opinion/2007/09/28/do2804.xml Ahmadinejad wants a nuclear war, as he believes this will herald the time of change when the missing Madhi returns, and when Islam becomes dominant. Still, if Israel has nuclear weapons, then why shouldn't Iran, eh Jack?

And even if, as Mr Ahmadinejad claimed in New York, Iran has no interest in developing nuclear weapons, there is every indication that Teheran is preparing itself for war, not least because the clash with Western civilisation that the Iranian president so obviously desires will hasten, or so he believes, the arrival of the 12th Imam. And in the red corner we have the American 'end-timers' who, oddly enough, believe in exactly the same thing but with Christians coming out on top. I think that the phrase "damned if we do, damned if we don't" is appropriate here. So given that the world is run and about to be fucked up by by nutters, might as well get the ball rolling: Go Israel... GO!!!

That's the spirit Tony, you are beginning to sound like Obama already! As for Iran wanting nuclear weapons: why the surprise? As for the statements of the Iranian President 'threatening' Israel: I think he was referring to the state of Israel (the "zionist entity", as he colourfully put it), rather than any genoicidal impulses towards the jews. I understand jews have reserved seats in the Iranian parliament. Shouldn't they all be hanging from a gibbet, Derius?