Tuesday, July 1, 2008

From ABC: Here comes trouble. Not from Iran, but from Israel

Recommended by CNN.com

Hat tip to Leonard Peracchio
From ABC News

Pentagon Official Warns of Israeli Attack on Iran
U.S. Offical Sees Two 'Red Lines' That Could Prompt Strike

WASHINGTON, June 30, 2008

Senior Pentagon officials are concerned that Israel could carry out an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities before the end of the year, an action that would have enormous security and economic repercussions for the United States and the rest of the world.

A senior defense official told ABC News there is an "increasing likelihood" that Israel will carry out such an attack, a move that likely would prompt Iranian retaliation against, not just Israel, but against the United States as well.

The official identified two "red lines" that could trigger an Israeli offensive. The first is tied to when Iran's Natanz nuclear facility produces enough highly enriched uranium to make a nuclear weapon. According to the latest U.S. and Israeli intelligence assessments, that is likely to happen sometime in 2009, and could happen by the end of this year.

"The red line is not when they get to that point, but before they get to that point," the official said. "We are in the window of vulnerability."

The second red line is connected to when Iran acquires the SA-20 air defense system it is buying from Russia. The Israelis may want to strike before that system -- which would make an attack much more difficult -- is put in place.

Some Pentagon officials also worry that Israel may be determined to attack before a new U.S. president, who may be less supportive, is sworn in next January.

Pentagon officials believe the massive Israeli air force exercise in early June, first reported by the New York Times, was done to prepare for a possible attack. A senior official called it "not a rehearsal, but basic, fundamental training" required to launch an operation against Iran.

"The Israeli air force has already conducted the basic exercise necessary to tell their senior leadership, 'We have the fundamentals down.' Might they need some more training and rehearsals? Yes. But have they done the fundamentals? I think that is what we saw," the official told ABC News, adding that if Israel moves closer to military action, he expects to see more exercises like the one conducted in early June.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, was in Israel over the weekend for a series of meetings with senior Israeli military officials, including, Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, the chief of staff of the Israeli Defense Forces. According to a military spokesman, Iran's nuclear program was "a major topic" of discussion.

The widely held view among Pentagon officials is that an Israeli attack would do only temporary damage to Iran's nuclear program, and that it would cause major problems in the region and beyond, prompting a wave of attacks on U.S. interests in Iraq, the Persian Gulf and elsewhere.

A note from Radarsite: Here, my friends, is the latest warning from our ever-vigilant leftist MSM: Trouble is on the way. Not from Iran's unyielding determination to acquire nuclear weapons, but from Israel's unyielding determination to stop them.
"The widely held view among Pentagon officials is that an Israeli attack would do only temporary damage to Iran's nuclear program, and that it would cause major problems in the region and beyond, prompting a wave of attacks on U.S. interests in Iraq, the Persian Gulf and elsewhere."
If this is indeed the view among "Pentagon officials", then we'd better just pack up and make our cowardly exit from the world stage. Or maybe we need some new Pentagon officials.

Is this the kind of support we are going to be giving our only ally in that whole blood-soaked region? Yes, without our military support -- as has been argued elsewhere -- an attack against Iran's nuclear and Defense facilities by Israel alone would indeed most likely only succeed in doing "temporary damage". Which is precisely why we need to provide them with our military and moral support.

Can this really be ABC's considered professional opinion? Do they have no shame? Is this the way we treat our allies?

The monumental threat posed to the Middle East, and eventually to the entire world, by Ahmadinejad's unwavering nuclear ambitions is to just be ignored. The real threat to the world comes from Israel. If Israel moves to defend itself, if they attack, Iran might just get mad. "Some Pentagon officials also worry that Israel may be determined to attack..." Some Pentagon officials worry?

What, I wonder, would have been their advice to America after Pearl Harbor?

What would our current courageous MSM's advice have been? - rg



  1. Israel will do what is good for Israel. Just as any nation will do what is in that nation's best interest.

    This same voice from the Pentagon screamed don't recognize the new Jewish State. It will be destroyed in 10 days.

    Funny, the Pentagon said the same thing in May 1967. They said that Egypt would defeat Israel in a matter of weeks.

    It was the same voices who argued that the US shouldn't send Israel any weapons in Oct. 1973. Let the Arab destroy the nation. Then peace will reign in the region.

    And now the Pentagon is screaming the same tune. It has a name: anti-Semitism.

  2. When Israel will do this action, it will be for the Good of their Counytry as well as for all Christian Nations..The question is IF Barry of Ho will Claim to have piloted that first Bomber .. based on his constant change of position and fabricated scenarios ( the Wesley Slime , followed by Webb and Rangel diatribes) he might yet make soem more FALSE Statements!!!

  3. Very tough to see this arti as putting blame on Little Satan.

    In fact Pentagon could be hinting that a buddied up attack on Iran's Regime - to kill it or at least wound it to death would be easier and far more effective than old school escalation attacks.

    Attacking nukey stuff is a smokescreen. An attack would at best buy time to do what exactly?

    Hope for some magical breakthrough in anti missile missiles and sheilds?

    That an internal regime change may happen?

    To prove Little Satan's military bona fides?

    Yet to kill off the regime - that would put paid to far more probs than knocking out 3 critical nodes in Persia that could be reconstituted under the protective umbrella of the SA 20 ADS.

  4. Thanks everyone.

    GSG -- Your take on that article leaves me more than a little puzzled. I can't read it any other way than the way I did. The writer (ABC News) and his Pentagon sources seem only to be concerned with the potential Iranian backlash from an ineffective or incomplete attack on Iran by Israel. The article barely mentions the existential threat posed by a successful Ahmadinejad. And nowhere does it call for American support.

    Perhaps, as you suggest, there's some subtle game being played beneath the radar, but I can only respond to what's out there. And what's 'out there' in this particular article is certainly not very supportive of Israel's right to self-defense. In fact, it almost totally ignores that right.

    If you have some contrary info, I would love to hear it. I'm hopeful that those particular negative voices from those unnamed Pentagon officials don't represent the position of the entire Pentagon staff.