Published: September 6th, 2012
● Israel will require American support – meaning intelligence, equipment, diplomacy – for whatever actions it takes against Iran.
● An Israeli attack might not succeed, and/or might only delay the Iranian nuclear program.
● A strike could trigger rocket attacks against Israel, followed by a drawn-out war.
● Obama truly wants to prevent Iran from going nuclear, and an Israeli attack would weaken his hand.
On the other hand, here are some of the arguments in favor of a pre-emptive Israeli strike:
● Iranian leaders have repeatedly stated their goal of destroying Israel. Nuclear weapons will allow them to realize this goal – or to continue to threaten to do so while encouraging Hamas and Hizbullah to attack Israel.
● An Israeli attack will not lead to all-out war, for neither Iran nor Israel are interested in it; each side will carefully measure its actions and responses so as to ensure that war does not occur.
● Diplomacy has run its course, with even UN diplomats now saying Iran uses negotiations as a stalling tactic. Similarly, the sanctions are too late, as Israel can't afford to wait a year or two to see if they will be successful.
● A Wall Street Journal editorial said that because of the U.S. presidential election, American opposition is no longer red but yellow. Washington knows the time to act against Iran is running out, and Obama will be hard-pressed to oppose an Israeli strike with Election Day approaching.
As the editorial put it, "If the U.S. has no serious intention to go beyond sanctions, Israel's only alternative to action is to accept a nuclear Iran and then stand by as the rest of its neighbors acquire nuclear weapons of their own. That scenario is the probable end of Israel." In short, it is a zero-sum game: Either Obama will go for it, thus "saving" Israel, or he won't, and then Israel must attack.
Read More:
http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/columns/keeping-jerusalem/jerusalem-washington-and-the-iranian-question/2012/09/06/0/?print
No comments:
Post a Comment