Iran and Washington's Israeli option

[Afshin]

BBC - The warning by the senior US military commander Adm Mike Mullen that an attack on Iran would be "extremely stressful" for US forces must lessen the chances of the US taking part in any strike against Iran.

But the admiral, who is chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and who has just visited Israel, spoke of Israel's vulnerability to "very real threats".

So the possibility remains that Israel might undertake an operation against Iran by itself. Recent large-scale Israeli air force exercises have strengthened this possibility, according to military observers.

Nor does Adm Mullen's intervention resolve the ambiguity of the Bush administration's position that "all options" are on the table.

But his views do indicate that the body of US military opinion is that they have their hands full in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Administration at odds

Adm Mullen's opinion echoes what the then head of Central Command, Adm William Fallon, said last November, that an attack on Iran was not "in the offing".

Adm Fallon resigned in March amid reports that he was at odds with the administration over Iran.

Increasingly, the military option seems to be narrowing to an Israeli option.

While Adm Mullen did not diverge from the Bush administration's line that the military option remains for the US and also said that in his view Iran was working to develop nuclear weapons, he stressed that "the solution still lies in using... diplomatic, financial and international pressure".

Military opposition to an attack on Iran is bound to weigh heavily on President George W Bush but would not necessarily be the determining factor.

Whether President Bush would dissuade Israel from launching its own attack is not known.

Iran has warned that any attack would bring consequences, one of which could be an Iranian move to close the Straits of Hormuz, through which oil is transported from the Persian Gulf. The effect on oil prices would be serious.

An Israeli cabinet minister and former chief of staff, Shaul Mofaz, has said that an attack on Iran is "unavoidable" if it "continues with its nuclear programme".

However, the timing of any attack remains uncertain.

Red lines

A recent ABC News report suggested that Israel might act before two "red lines" are reached.

The first would be the production by Iran of enough highly-enriched uranium to make a nuclear bomb and the second would be its acquisition of a new Russian anti-aircraft system, the S-300.

However, Iran is not making highly enriched uranium suitable for a weapon, only low-enriched uranium useable as nuclear power fuel.

The International Atomic Energy Agency would probably spot any move to change this. So exactly how and when this "red line" might be reached is unclear.

As for the S-300, it was only in December that Iran indicated that it would buy this very advanced anti-aircraft system. It has only recently taken possession of the Tor-MI and it could be many months before the S-300 is delivered.

Iran says that it has no intention of developing nuclear weapons and a US National Intelligence Estimate has concluded that it probably gave up a nuclear weapons programme in 2003.

Paul.Reynolds-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

[Afshin]

A very good editorial that is related to the above, its too long to copy, please go to this link and read it:
http://www.persianmirror.com/Article_det.cfm?id=2135&getArticleCategory=41&getArticleSubCategory=3

[Afshin]

ISRAEL PAVES THE WAY FOR WAR

PTV - In early June, perhaps coinciding with Olmert's trip to the US, Israel conducted a military maneuver over the eastern Mediterranean and Greece in what Pentagon officials have suggested to be in preparation for a war with Iran.

Over 100 Israeli F-16s and F-15s partook in the exercise, which spanned some 900 miles, roughly the distance between their airfields and a nuclear enrichment facility in the central Iranian city of Natanz.

An Israeli politician familiar with the Air Force initiative said that Iranians should "read the writing on the wall . . . This was a dress rehearsal, and the Iranians should read the script before they continue with their program for nuclear weapons."

On June 6, reportedly a day after the unpublicized exercise ended, Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz, who hopes to succeed Olmert as the next prime minister, described a war with Iran as "unavoidable" and threatened to wage war on Iran if the country fails to halt its nuclear activities.

His tactless remarks, while tacitly justified by the media as an attempt to win approval for future elections, have sparked a war of words between Tehran and Tel Aviv and have somewhat benefited Israel in its portrayal of Iran as a threat before the docile US Congress to secure the approval of Resolution 362.

Iran almost instantly urged UN Security Council action against Israel, saying the inaction of the United Nations over Israeli atrocities has emboldened Tel Aviv to such an extent that it now publicly threatens Iran in flagrant violation of the UN Charter.

"Iran's Armed Forces have reached a pinnacle of their military might and if anyone is to take such measures (attacks Iran), the response will be excruciating," responded Iranian Defense Minister Brigadier General Mostafa Mohammad-Najjar.

Israel later played down the threats but fired back by using a harsher rhetoric suggestive of a nuke attack on Iran. "We must tell them: If you so much as dream of attacking Israel, before you even finish dreaming there won't be an Iran anymore," Israeli Infrastructure Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer told the Israeli public radio June 7 without elaborating on why he believed Tehran would ever attack Tel Aviv.

"Iran should know the price it will have to pay when it begins to think concretely about attacking Israel," he continued in a direct attempt to represent Tehran as the aggressor.

Israel later ramped up its anti-Iran "operational" activities. On June 10, Israeli sources revealed that Tel Aviv had set up an 'Iran Command' within its Air Force as part of preparations for a war on the Islamic Republic.

The Command was said to be directed at improving coordination among Israeli ballistic missiles and air and missile brigades that deploy the Arrow and Patriot missile systems. That very day, Congress threw more of its weight behind Israel.

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki commented on the issue. He argued that Israel "lacks legitimacy" and has already been defeated not by "a modernized army" but by "a resistance group" in its 33-day war against Lebanon, suggesting that Tel Aviv should not be taken seriously.

ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE

"We will not allow Iran to close it," threatens Vice-Admiral Kevin J. Cosgriff of the 5th Fleet. "The US Navy has been in the region for 60 years and will be here for decades to come."

He was responding to remarks made by commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), Major General Mohammad-Ali Jafari, who was asked whether Tehran would consider closing the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz waterway if it were attacked.

"When a country comes under attack, it naturally uses all its capacities to confront the enemy," said the Iranian commander.

It does seem silly, however, and somewhat insane that despite the cavernous archives of Washington acts of aggression against sovereign nations, their countless years of meddling in Iran, their coup d'état against Mossadeq, their support for the oppressive Shah, their unapologetic downing of passenger flight 655, their long-time support for and funding of terrorist groups such as the Mojaheddin Khalq Organization (MKO) and Jundullah in hopes of destabilizing the country and their cruel efforts to arm late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction to use against Iranian and Iraqi civilians, an American Vice Admiral even has the gall to say that an Iranian attempt to protect their sovereignty against a gang of aggressor countries attacking them in violation of the UN Charter would be considered by the world as an act of holding 40 percent of world oil "hostage" by "a single country".

Yes, indeed, America does have a 60-year history of brazen imperialism in the Middle East and "will be here for decades to come". That must be why Bush says the Iranian threat must be dealt with.

A military strike on Iran will not be the easy hit-and-run job Americans expect it to be, though. According to US Vice-Admiral Cosgriff, it will be "pretty disastrous," with "echoes and aftershocks" reverberating throughout the region.

As waves of US and Israeli fighter jets scream over the country, Iranian missile defense systems will load the skies, downing an overwhelming number of high-tech aircraft. According to Western media outlets, while the violators will be able to accomplish parts of their mission, there is the prospect of retaliatory attacks on US military bases and American forces stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan. If correct, scores of US soldiers may be vanquished in a relatively short time.

Sharp-shooting pilots will dice with death to repel US warships and kamikaze missions may commence against US naval forces in the Persian Gulf. The military will respond to Israeli airstrikes with missile attacks never seen before in Israel.

Harking back to the eight-year war imposed upon Iran by a US-backed Saddam (1980-88), the spirit of the sovereign nation that has never accepted foreign domination will be revitalized. The American strategists will be thoroughly bewildered by the courageous missions carried out by those who love Iran despite its hardships.

As with the US-led siege on Iraq and Afghanistan, demonstrators will take to the streets all around the world; Washington will be the scene of violence as the White House justifies the move under the guise of the War on Terror.

Opposition to the war will be evident in Arab countries throughout the already volatile Middle East and some nations may intervene, wreaking further havoc. The ensuing battles could easily close the 21-mile Strait of Hormuz chokepoint, cutting crude exports from the oil-rich Persian Gulf.

As the war of attrition continues, it has been suggested by international analysts that Latin American countries that have long suffered because of US interference may halt oil exports to the US in condemnation of the aggression, thus triggering massive oil spikes.

According to predictions by Rice University economists, oil prices may surge to $200 a barrel in the next year which would mean Americans will have to pay $6.64 per gallon for gasoline. Pundits, however, say a war on Iran will double or triple crude prices.

The already weak US economy could, if the war persists, assume the burden of $10-a-gallon gasoline and could plunge into an unprecedented depression. The fuel shortage will prompt an increase in biofuel farming. Hundreds of millions worldwide could have nothing to eat; high fuel prices would lead to a surge in farming costs and may further deepen the food crisis. Riots could ensue. The world will never be the same.

[aliirooni]

I hate to sound like Iranian president as I don't agree with him, his government, and where he stands but I think Israel is nearing its end days that is why she is freaked out of her mind about Iran.

The Zionists engineered war against terror has failed, in fact in has awaken many. Never had I known so many Americans knowing about Israel and Zionists controlling their country if anti Zionism was not so taboo and linked to Anti Semitism and White Suprimism, that would be the topic of many day to day political conversations across the country.

[Afshin]

Israel has over 400 nuclear warheads, so at best Iran could only deter Israel from attacking them if they acquire nuclear weapons, but Iran is no threat to Israel simply because if Iran was to hit Israel with nuclear weapons Israel could wipe Iran off the map, sowhat's the fuss about!  Its all about the US and Israel bullying others in the region and wanting to be the only ones with power.