Panetta: Israel could attack Iran as early as April

[Wezil]

Yep, no instability there.

[Dinner]

Yesterday Dr. Brzezinski was on MSNBC's Hardball saying that every year since 1994 Israeli pressure groups have been issuing reports claiming Iran might get a nuclear weapon with in the next year. They've been wrong every year for the last 17 years so what's the odds that they'll be wrong an 18th time in a row?

[Sparrowhawk]

I'll start by pointing out I have only been casually following this issue and may be wrong on some facts, but the assumption in this thread so far seems to be that this issue comes down to whether it will be Iran versus Israel or Iran versus Israel/US....but doesn't Iran have some potential allies that could make this a nasty world war (Russia, China & Pakistan to name three)?

Does no one think that other nations will defend Iran if Israel (or the US) attack Iran?

/me

[DaShi]

Not really.

[Dinner]

There only real ally is Syria and Assad seems to be having his own survival fight right now.

[onodera]

Russia won't help defend Iran, of course, but won't miss its chance to clandestinely test some of the new weapons.

[dannubis]

What would those be ? Polished rocks ?

[regexcellent]

No, surface to air missiles.

Certain relatively new Russian SAMs believed to be in Iranian possession such as (I believe) the SA-20 and SA-22 remain untested in combat. If they were to shoot down any Israeli aircraft it would be very significant for the export market. Also, it would allow the Russians to evaluate the performance of the Russian Army's own equipment and determine how to improve it.

[Zevico]

By Barry Rubin

For the second time in a few months we have seen a crazy global Israel-About-to-Attack-Iran Story. I don't want to go into all of the details but this tale is an example of how the media has just lost it completely due to a combination of laziness (reporters don't really do research or check sources); agenda; ignorance; and good old sensationalism. Partly, too, it arises from the difficulty of the mass media in dealing with the Internet media era and the difficulty of the Internet media in achieving decent journalistic standards.

A couple of months ago a level of hysteria was reached on the basis of three stories:

--A Jerusalem Post article, which could have been published just about any time in the last five years, saying that the Israeli air force was practicing for an attack on Iran.

--An interview with a former Israeli intelligence official who opposes attacking Iran saying that Israel had decided not to attack Iran but worrying that the prime minister might want to reopen discussion of the issue.
--A sensationalistic article in an Arab newspaper with no Israeli inside sources speculating that an attack was going to happen.

Out of this was built a worldwide story claiming something was going to happen that wasn't. It was quickly shown to be wrong but no lesson was learned.

Now we've just been through phase two. A Washington Post columnist, not known for his accuracy, claimed that the U.S. defense secretary said that Israel was about to attack. This was immediately accepted as if the cabinet member had said so publicly when the supposed statement was completely unproven. The man in question, Leon Panetta, denied the story.

Just a quick note: Rubin is referring to Panetta's response to this allegation:

“No, I’m just not commenting,” he said, according to the AP, when asked about Ignatius’s column. “What I think, and what I view, I consider that to be an area that belongs to me and nobody else.”

So he's not saying he said it, and he's not saying he didn't. But not a denial per se.

Within a few days President Barack Obama said he knew Israel was not going to attack Iran. Think of what that means. Israeli leaders and American intelligence assessments have been daily reporting that no attack was imminent. If Obama knew it, Panetta knew it.

It is true that a respected Israeli journalist wrote an article based on interviews in which he concluded that some day Israel would attack. But my reading of the article concludes that those interviewed are clearly expressing concern and trying to influence Western policy by saying: Do something so we don't have to attack Iran some day.
If Israel was about to attack, he wouldn't have written the article at all.

And consistent Israeli statements to the contrary were simply ignored. The most important was by Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak who said what everyone knew: Israel would only attack if Iran had deliverable nuclear weapons, no decision had been made, and that was well in the future.

I could go on but what is lacking here is the equivalent of common sense. There are many good reasons why Israel won't attack Iran now which I have presented already. To its credit, the Los Angeles Times finally came up with a story noting that Israelis were "bemused" by all the hysteria that ran totally contrary to what they knew.
People have written about why Israel should not attack Iran but very few have written about why Israel would not attack Iran at this time. There has been indifference to all of the totally known factors involved regarding this decision.

In the end, the issue is one of fact. It is easily observable that Israel has not attacked Iran and still has not done so on any given date in the future. Yet what does this say about media coverage and public debate over other stories, especially international ones?

Doesn't anybody think there's a lesson to be learned in that fact that they were just plain wrong? Just as they were wrong about the Israel-Palestinian peace process progressing, Syria becoming moderate, the "Arab Spring," and so many other things? Might all these errors prompt some reconsideration of premises and methods?

http://rubinreports.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/world-media-goes-bonkers-israel-attacks.html

Barry Rubin's one of the best in the business when it comes to foreign policy. The fact that he thinks the Israelis aren't going to strike Iran is food for thought, to say the least.

[Wezil]

I certainly hope he's right but the tenor of the discussion is upsetting.

It feels like the lead up to Iraq all over again.

[Al B. Sure!]

Obligatory cultural reference/irreverence:

So old. It was amusing black humor when it was a John McCain joke but now it's disturbing.

Do you just sit with your rich nerd friends giggling and singing along with such callousness about the nuclear destruction of an entire nation?

[Af Ra Kam]

Thanks Af Ra Kam, you're funny. I laughed.

This is not a laughing matter. This is about civilization. Not the Eurocentric definition of conquest and exploitation but civilization in the sense of civil behavior and self-determination.

[regexcellent]

Self-determination, like what Israel and the Jews have a right to have? Without being nuked?

[Zevico]

Yep, no instability there.

The trouble is that instability is inevitable if Iran obtains nuclear weapons. Consider, for example, Iranian policy in Iraq before the Iran-Iraq war. This was a war that began because Iran was sponsoring Shiite groups that assassinated Ba'ath members. The plan was to quite literally ensure that the Shiites killed their way to the top and toppled the Ba'ath. Now the Ba'ath were tyrants, but so too would be its replacements. The result was that the Ba'ath launched a war against the Iranians. Stalemate and eventual peace ensued.
Now consider how many nations would launch a war of preservation against Iran in reaction to this policy if it were implemented by the Iranians if they possessed nuclear weapons. This is not a hypothetical scenario as it is precisely what they're doing in Lebanon (Hezballah). It's also what they did in the Palestinian Territories (Hamas--Sunnis, but better as far as Iran is concerned than Fatah).
How many nations would be willing to do it? How many would want nukes instead? How much time would the Iranians have to implement this policy without the encumbrance of a nuclear Middle East? How much influence might Iran gain as a result? How many of these nations have stable governments?



[QUOTE=Wezil;6081461]I certainly hope he's right but the tenor of the discussion is upsetting.

It feels like the lead up to Iraq all over again.

Feeling are not a substitute for analysis.

[SlowwHand]

Someone will do something.

Report: Saudi Arabia eyes nukes if Iran tests A-bomb

Kingdom would quickly acquire WMD if Tehran successfully tests an atomic bomb, source tells newspaper.

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/10/10369793-report-saudi-arabia-to-buy-nukes-if-iran-tests-a-bomb