Much of the talk of an Israeli attack on Iran makes it sound like a push-button operation. The Israeli government sends word, a few warplanes fly to Iran and bomb a few remote locations, and the whole thing blows over. This is, after all, what essentially happened in 1981 when Israel attacked the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq.
Yet an attack on Iran, if indeed it happens, is a much bigger matter, potentially involving weeks of bombings by Israel and inevitable retaliation by an Iranian government that has been preparing for decades.
The war would not be limited to Israel and Iran, but would have enormous global repercussions. President Obama has already conceded that, even if he prefers “diplomacy,” he intends to commit the US “in lockstep” to whatever Israel decides.
This is part of the Israeli strategy. Israeli Vice Premier Moshe Ya’alon has urged the world to think of it as “Iran versus the West, the United States, Europe and so on.” There is little doubt, however broad Iran’s retaliation might be, that it would be Israel firing the first shot in this war.
Europe’s role in any such war would seem to be entirely involuntary. Many predict that the ensuing oil price spike would bring the entire Eurozone into recession, probably drive Greece and Italy into default, and likely cripple the Euro as a viable currency.
Turkey appears to fear the consequences as well, saying such a war would “be a disaster.” And Iraq, a close Iranian ally, would probably get the worst of it, experiencing virtually instant bankruptcy, many predict.
On the other hand, the Pakistani government is said to feel obliged to support Iran in its retaliation if war breaks out. Since US involvement on Israel’s side is already a foregone conclusion, it would also likely mean an American war with Pakistan. Given China’s close ties with Pakistan, this could rapidly extend the tensions east.
give me iran over israel any day.
Armageddon!
These slimey Zionists will be the doom of us all. This won't just crash the Euro-economy as stated in the article, you can expect the US economy to take a heavy hit too. This is an outrage.
This is idiotic fearmongering as bad as what the neocons do. Iran has no capability to fight anywhere beyond the Middle East and no one likes them. Russian and China especially dont want war that destabilizes the world. If Israel attacks, it will be a quick operation that sets Iran back somewhat significantly, not bombing for weeks. Thats absurd and impossible. Whoever wrote this should shove his head up Krauthammers crippled ass, so they can both suffer.
The same people who say Iran doesnt have nukes say that Iran cant attack all over the world. But as soon as such a sentiment becomes convenient, they say Iran can attack all over the world. Which is it, kids?
I don't know why there would be anyone who WOULDN'T say that Iran doesn't have nukes.
Or are there actually people outside of the lunatic sheeple and useful idiots corner who do say so?
Iran doesn't *need* to attack all over the world. They are where the oil is at and where crowns sit uneasily on monarchs' heads. They have also been obligingly provided with NATO targets on the other side of the border. Great fun can be had at little expense.
This doesn't make sense. I've never read anywhere someone saying they don't have nukes and then claim they do. Can you cite where you saw this?
Iran's nuclear facilities are widely dispersed and *much* better defended and fortified than was the case with the lone unfinished Osirak reactor; this makes a "quick operation" by Israel highly unlikely. Further, if attacked, Iran *can* disrupt the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz and also inflict damage on oil fields in the eastern Arabian Peninsula; and such disruption and damage would in fact have detrimental effects on economies worldwide. It also pays to remember that Iran *does* have allies and proxies as well as potential allies and proxies in the region—including Hezbollah, Syria (where regime change, unsurprisingly, is a current western priority), Shi'a militias in Iraq, and disaffected Shi'as elsewhere in the Gulf Region. Nor should recent statements regarding the potential belligerence of nuclear-armed Pakistan, an increasingly volatile nation where anti-American sentiment is rampant, be dismissed out of hand. An attack on Iran *does* have the potential, then, for turning into a regional conflagration. Moreover, such an attack would, to an unknown extent, increase tensions between the US and China and Russia—in no wise a desirable development. Iran, in short, does not have to have the ability to launch direct retaliatory strikes worldwide for an attack on that country to result in wider conflict, heightened international tensions and global economic damage.
And then there's another danger too little addressed: what if Israel or the US gets "lucky" and scores a direct hit on an active nuclear facility Iran? What would be the regional, the *global* health and environmental consequences of applying high explosives to tons of nuclear fuel?
This is not "idiotic fearmongering." This is realism and circumspection; this is admitting that Iran in 2012 is not Iraq in 1981, and that much can go wrong. Only a fool speaks of certainties and impossibilities where war is concerned. But anyone who can't see that this situation is pregnant with danger must already have their head lodged firmly in Charles Krauthammer's fundament.
The fact is juvanya (interesting name that) has no idea what Iran is or isn't capable of, nor does anybody else for that matter. Given the unknowns why take the chance of letting Israel carry out its aggression. Look what happened following an assassination in Sarayevo in 1914. Nobody thought that would happen either. There is a law of unintended consequences. Anybody who treats the prospect of war as in any way acceptable is crazy and irresponsible. I would ask are they prepared to kill and die for Israel? Or pepared to have their kids do so? I bet not, so why make out it would be a breeze as juvanya and the neocon chicken hearts do?
Israel did NOT bomb the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq. Israel bombed the Osirak construction site. There was no nuclear fuel present. That is a BIG difference between Osirak construction site and the Bushehr reactor. Bushehr has 80 tons of enriched uranium in it. The Natanz nuclear refinery has tons and tons of enriched uranium in it, then once dispersed by bunker buster bombs, will kill about 5 million Iranians, so estimates the Union of Concerned Scientists. Humans have never bombed nuclear reactors. Never. It is an insane action. What will "blow over" is the radioactive fallout, blowing over the Persian Gulf, and then over Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. Or, maybe blowing over Arabia and Africa. Or, over Israel, Turkey and Europe. Or all of them, considering that radioactive fallout stays dangerous for decades or centuries.
Thank you for stating the obvious! This is something that nobody in corporate controlled media has ever taken the time to say. Excellent points.
Think Fukashima, only far worse.
For the malefic ambitions of Israel the world is to be sacrificed. The President is clearly insane, in a very clinical sense, to back such malevolence. Only the recollection of a depraved Caligula comes to mind as a comparison. This kind of madness permeates the ruling class throughout the West.
The only war Israel "won" in the last 40 years was dumping phosphorus bombs on tiny Gaza. Israel will lose a direct military confrontation with Iran. Israel has about 7.5 million people, 1.5 million of whom are Arabs. Iran has 74 million people and is loaded with natural resources. Despite dreamworld propaganda to the contrary, the Iranian population backs the government in defending its borders.
US becomes engaged? It would make invading Iraq look like Reagan's day trip into Grenada in the 1980s. It would be a complete disaster for the US.
Ultimately you only win wars by demographics. It's a pure population numbers game, not a military hardware and strategy game. Haven't we learned that yet? Military idiots continue to play infantile games with their toy soldiers and their snazzy hardware, and true demographic struggles continue to shape political events in spite of military fools and their violence.
I suppose from Israel's point of view, they know they've already lost (the demographic war). An attack on Iran would be an act of desperation from a failed and desperate society. That's one of the reasons it seems now likely to happen.
Israel cannot get to bomb Iran without going over other nations. This will put the nation in a position to allow and risk getting bombed by Iran or taking action to not allow the overflight. The USA would have to provide refueling or the planes will have to land and be refueled. I suspect a plane getting refueled would be an easy target. I suspect a plane loaded with a heavy bunker buster would be an easy target also.
In 1973 the entire Israel air forces was shot down. The USA provided replacement. It is not unreasonable to see major loses by Israel and how many billion dollars will that cost to provide replacement. Are we going to train the new pilots when Israel refuses to be a good ally.
The attack on Iran is a potential disaster for Israel that is why the scumbags will pull a false flag and get the USA to take the loses.
This is interesting. False flag is clearly the way to go for Israel. But false flag requires persuasive credibility, and everyone, grandmas to toddlers knows now what a false flag is, how many times Israel has employed it, how ideally suited and necessary (not to mention predictable) it is in this situation.
And every US military commander in the Gulf area must certainly be informed and on full alert re a false flag attack on their command.
You might think, under these circumstances that Israel would be hesitant to employ this tactic, but the record has shown the Israelis to actually "celebrate" their brazenness. Would they go "brazen" yet again? Would they declare a big bad "F*ck you" to the entire world yet again? Are they so very stubborn and bat-crap crazy that they will invite a Masada redux, insanely convinced that they enjoy deterrence based on the Sampson Option? Or have they simply milked to the limit the effectiveness of the "Watch out!!! We're so psycho we might do anything!" strategy?
Astonishing.
Israel might be a little concerned about attacking one of our naval ships. They probably would have been put in thier place after the attack on the USS LIberty had it not been for John McCains fathers efforts to make sure the crew of the liberty were not allowed to talk while it was still a topic.
Israel could not sink an unarmed old cargo ship so they might think that it not wise to mess with someone who can shot back. Come to think about it that is the entire Israel military conduct. Never attack an armed opponent. One could get hurt. Attack the old woman and children and call them terrorist.
Give the world the middle finger again? You bet. It's worked before and they'll keep going back to the old playbook so long as it does. Now as far as sinking a ship goes I don't believe it has to be an airborne missile. As I recall the Israelis may have a sub in the Straits. Now what would a few torpedoes do? Blame the Iranians for phantom "mines" and there you have it.
>he intends to commit the US “in lockstep” to whatever Israel decides.
Yes, this kind of approach worked rather well for the Entente. It's kinda like a bailout – take away the moral hazard and you might regret it later.
>likely cripple the Euro as a viable currency.
Some good may yet come out of this, then?
Egypt would be the most interesting country to watch in such an event. The US-backed Egyptian generals would of course support Israel by trying to remain 'neutral'. But the crowds in Tahir Sq would certainly have no interest in remaining neutral and would want Egypt to enter the war against Israel. And the US-backed generals have already shown that they are afraid of the crowds in Tahir Sq and the threat they would provide to their continued Us-backed autocratic rule.
Syria would be interesting in that it would tend to unify the Assad faction and the rebels against Israel. Such a war might put a temporary halt to the civil war there.
Thanks to Dubya/Obama, there is an Iranian friendly, Shite government in Iraq for the first time.
Southern Lebanon is of course hostile to Israel and friendly with Iran who's helped southern Lebanon try to defend itself against Israeli aggressions in the past.
Turkey would be another interesting case. A part of NATO, and therefore presumably on America's side. But tensions with Israel over Israeli pirate attacks in the Med have strained that relation, and like in Egypt, Israel is highly unpopular outside of the pro-Us government.
In Europe, the war would be extremely unpopular outside of the pro-Us governments. Places like Greece have already seen civil unrest over sanctions against Iran. There would likely be mass protests and resistance to such a war across most of Europe. Especially since the press is free-er in Europe than in the autocratic US, and not as prone to acting like a unified propaganda wing for Israel. On top of the unrest against the rule of the bankers in Europe that already exists, such a war could possilby topple governments there in the same way the Spanish government was toppled for their support of Dubya's war in Iraq.
One must hope that Iran's response is overwhelming, and if Israel resorts to nukes that Pakistan as it has warned takes out Tel Aviv and then some. Israel is the biggest danger to not only its population, but to the entire world.
“The threat of Israel’s turning itself into a nuclear-armed desperado striking at will at the oil states in the Gulf cannot, alas, be entirely dismissed. That may be, as Ariel Roth argues, a compelling reason to maintain the special relationship pretty much unchanged.”
http://www.mepc.org/journal/middle-east-policy-ar…
Let's get it over with. No more suspense! We humans have overstayed our welcome on this beautiful planet. Time to get ourselves out the way and let Mother Nature do its thing again. Hopefully next time, she'll leave the monkeys on the trees.
Iran is not crazy to retaliate against Europe. Why hit Europe?
We won’t have to worry about the high price of oil. It won’t happen because there would be no oil for as long as the war continues. This is because in the event of war the Iranians will destroy oil production facilities in the Persian Gulf states, showing to Saudis and Qataris that they were idiots thinking the U.S. could protect them.
The fall of pro-U.S. regimes in the Arab world may be some of the unintended consequences.
Take out The City of London first.,war will be over.
im so ashame of the USA WE LOVE KILLING unarmed women and children they hate muslim everywere and the muslim who kill other muslim Allah have a place for you Iran is our brother what the hell wrong with you wake up
why the west is wiling to sacrifice the peace in the world to protect the zionist junta in the occupied land of Palestine? Why do you support another war in the Gulf? Haven't you learnt a bitter lesson loosing your wars in Iraq. I wish God's curse on all the leaders of these governments for supporting the aggressive intent of the hated Zionist regime.