Ehud Barak, Israel’s outgoing defense minister, said in Davos that
going to war is not the only option for the Israelis if sanctions and diplomacy fail to stop Iran from acquiring
nuclear weapons. He said the Pentagon
has prepared “sophisticated blueprints” for a “surgical operation” to prevent
Iran from doing so.
“What we basically say is that if worse comes to worst, there should
be a readiness and an ability to launch a surgical operation that will delay
them by a significant time frame and probably convince them that it won’t work
because the world is determined to block them,” Barak said. “The Pentagon (has)
prepared quite sophisticated, fine, extremely fine, scalpels,” referring to the
ability to carry out pinpoint strikes. (Daily Beast/NYT, 26 January)
Barak made the comments during an interview on Friday with The
Daily Beast on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos. The New York
Times also reported the interview on Saturday.
Herbert Krosney, an American-Israeli analyst, told the Times Mr. Barak’s statement “indicates that there is close cooperation” between Israel and the United States. “I think there is a realization in Israel that it would be extremely difficult for Israel to operate alone,” he said. (New York times, 26 January)
Herbert Krosney, an American-Israeli analyst, told the Times Mr. Barak’s statement “indicates that there is close cooperation” between Israel and the United States. “I think there is a realization in Israel that it would be extremely difficult for Israel to operate alone,” he said. (New York times, 26 January)
The Pentagon has declined to comment on the report, but a senior defense
official told the New York Times: “The U.S. military constantly plans for a range
of contingencies we might face around the world, and our planning is often
quite detailed.” The official added, “That shouldn’t come as a surprise to
anyone.”
The Times notes that destroying Fordo uranium enrichment
plant, Iran’s hardened underground facility capable of preparing nuclear-weapon-grade enriched uranium, would probably be beyond the ability of the Israeli air
force. The U.S. however does have newly-deployed “Massive Ordnance Penetrator,”
a huge conventional bomb that is designed to attack deep, hardened sites like
Fordo.
Photo credit: Ehud Barak, Israel's defense minister, at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland. 26 January 2012. (Johannes Eisele/AFP/Getty Images/NYT)
Photo credit: Ehud Barak, Israel's defense minister, at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland. 26 January 2012. (Johannes Eisele/AFP/Getty Images/NYT)
17 comments:
hopefully, the US won't be required to destroy the sites and the Iranian military
Israel never had any plans to begin with its plan is to pull the strings in Washington as always
listen to yair lipid on views on iran to actually get an understanding what real Israeli view is and has always been
It is interesting to read the most banal childlike comments on this bizarre blog. The FACT is that the pathetic Zionists who fled at the sight of one antiquated Grad 122mm rocket are hardly in a position to "attack" Iran. This was all delusional Zionist bluff which was called by Iran anyway. Neither the deadbeat US facing implosion at home is in any position either. NO ONE CAN OR WILL "ATTACK" Iran in this lifetime or the next. However, keep up the comedy anyway.
Whatever you are smoking or toking get off it now. The US is a bankrupt deadbeat facing internal implosion and owing TRILLIONS to China and a hollow economy. The last thing the pathetic US needs is a swan song war in the Persian Gulf oilfields and the destruction of its Zionist crazy mutt. You people must live on a different planet with such poor grasp of reality.LOL. Keep the reefer madness going dude
bite down hard, bloviationist.
the US is far larger, healthier and more robust than is the Iranian theocracy and yes, we do live in a different world than the dunces and dupes dwelling in the Neverland of Iranian propaganda claims.
the pathetic Zionists seem to have been able to overcome their fright well enough to have beaten the stuffing out of larger Arab armies time and again and to have expanded their territorial control quite a bit while the big brave warriors of Hamas remain bottled up and dependent on the UN handouts to feed the people of Gaza.
repeating the pathetic drivel in PRESS-TV ain't gonna keep you safe, sonny.
Hardly junior, the Zionists are on BORROWED TIME anyway and kept on life-support like Sharon on deadbeat US taxpayer dollars and the $3 BILLION bribe money to Egyptian military to keep them out of a war that almost destroyed the Zionist cowards in 1973. This time the regional equation is changing. BTW, even the Apartheid regime in South Africa lasted a mere 100 years. Zionist imported cancer has manifested in Palestine for a mere 60 years and has not been accepted by anyone. Get a grip dude as this hasbara package propaganda ain't working. Do the Debka.LOL and then some.
Hollow as always.
child, the Zionists will far outlast Iran's theocratic regime. The Arabs are far happier to have Israel as a neighbor than to have the Khomeinist slime nearby.
Anon 2:33 AM,
Agree about their preferences, but it isn't a question of "happiness". In geopolitics it is never about that anyway. I'd rather say it is merely because just like Israel, those sheikhdoms you're referring to are all stalwart allies of the United States, which in turn conditions its reciprocal support of these Sunni monarchies mostly based on warm relations with their Zionist neighbor. Saudi Arabia for example, until recently was involved into an active and officially claimed economic boycott of Israel. Now it has little be little silently eased its position over the years, since the strengthening of its strategic partnership with uncle Sam in a larger GCC spectrum requires such rapprochement. And with regards to Qatar, it is even more true, commercially speaking they do quite copious amount of trade every year through more and more common businesses. But make no mistake, in the end, in religious, historical or ideological terms, would it be the Saudi, Qatari or Iranian leaders, they will always share more or less the same opinion on this foreign-back non-muslim spot in the ME they've had for a long time : an unholy Judaic entity that has nothing to do where it is since they don't worship Allah and persecute its original Arab land owners. You'd be surprised to hear what Saudis and Qataris say about Israel in more "private" or local paper every once in a while. I suggest you do some research on that before so confidently claiming their "happiness" about their neighbor. Of course, strategically, they have everything to gain by sitting back and watching the show weakening both of their regional competitors in the event this "cold war" goes hot between the two.
True, but the fact they haven't acted beyond words yet alone is a proof that for a combination of reasons, they simply judge they cannot afford to go directly to war with Iran as it is. After economically disastrous Iraq and Afghanistan, the ongoing crisis, plus a projected 500 billion budget cut by the Pentagon and staff reductions in every secondary US bases overseas (a never seen before trend since 1945), the US can't act as its former self that easily without any second thoughts, like it or hate that's not the point. Projected losses of USN assets is considered too high by senior establishment members. They do not take Iran's anti-ship and anti-access capabilities a bit lightly, and I will not go into detail regarding the specifics of an Iranian response on US bases in the region in case they go for the Powell option of bombings only. For any offensive scenarios, there is a unacceptable fallout from Iran known capabilities, again hate it, or like it, it makes no difference, these are facts. Accepted by those in charge on both sides and that's what nothing happens for now. Forget the old "America will crush Iran's military in a couple of hours via shock & awe" since it is not applicable here, Iran's 2013 air defenses are not embargoed and starving Iraq's of 2003, nor are the expertise and motivation of its TWO armies, nor is the American's willingness of another advanced, long, and high-intensity warfare engagement with the ME's first missile power... sure they would do a lot of damage to military and civilian infrastructure and probably "win" in conventional terms, but will take more than a bleeding nose in the process (militarily as much as financially), and more importantly ZERO remaining support within the Iranian public for a couple of decades, and they can risk none of these. And if you ask me, assuming internal unrest doesn't happen soon, Iran will end up more isolated than ever in the coming years, with either ultimately reaching the virtual nuclear weapon state, or performing an actual nuclear test if they finally pull out of the NPT, North Korea style. And its people will suffer even more dire consequences of the subsequent containment the country will go through...
that the US hasn't gone to war with iran reflects that the US doesn't wish to do so, not that it can not.
the US has been rather clear that if Iran attempts to assemble nuclear weapons, the US will forcefully respond to stop the effort.
and no one thinks that the US will attempt to crush all of Iran via air strikes or that it wouldn't take the US more than a month to do so.
losses to the USN would not be a problem, friend, as the range of the Navy is far far greater than the ability of Iran to effectively target them. all the USN has to do is steam away from the Iranian coast.
History shows that the US foreign policy has never, and will never be based on wishing, but rather on realistic interests and acceptable losses. What they CAN do, they DO. They don't hold back based on wishes and humanism, friend. If Iran ever becomes nuclear, they will contain it, like they do for North Korea, period. And it will be disastrous enough for its people, rest assured, I'm not one to say it will constitute any kind of victory for Iran, don't get me wrong here.
ON the USN you're only partially correct. Yes for some time the USN assets will move out of potential anti-ship missiles' reach. But that is exactly why local regional bases will be targeted as an alternative. And as you probably know, they happen to have plenty in close proximity to Iran, within range to both their proven SRBMs and MRBMs. And no amount of untested Patriot batteries will be enough to protect them all, even considering a theoretical 60-70% interception success, which is be all estimates already optimistic. And considering no Aegis ABM destroyers will be around to support a protection effort, since as you rightfully mentioned, they will be far away from the Persian gulf shores, away from Iran's coastal batteries, the degree of troops' exposition to enemy fire will be catastrophic. Anyway, you cannot conduct an air war with your fleet staying at 1000-2000km+ away from the shores. If they want to go in with substantial force, they will have to get much closer, considering their F-18s ferry range, and there you have the anti-ship Iranian arsenal waiting, that you will have to deal with first, add another few billions and serious losses for that phase. And before you dismiss my claims as Islamic propaganda, know that it isn't me saying all that, it's the latest Pentagon Public Report stating it, signed by Leon Panetta himself, about the evolving threat of Iranian naval weapons, you should read it, VERY instructive indeed, among other sources.
Plus, the US economy is not what it was when they attacked Iraq or Afghanistan, which had no military apparatus left to speak of by the time anymore to begin with...
Taking on Iran would have been effectuated many times already, would the needed conditions for it be validated by circles of command (by that i mean a financially sustainable war effort, and enough support at the home-front after two failed wars and a trillion+ deficit.)
No matter how you take it, it would be a long and costly war, not speaking of a surge of destabilization waves in Iraq which would add extra pressure on their shoulders.
The US is smarter than "flattening" Iran or "turning it into a parking lot" for something they can contain by much cheaper means.
No one thinks that close to a thousand MRBMs would stay idle by to get struck one after the other, or that a few hundred Tomahawk cruise missiles will be enough to deal with all their targets in Iran, considering the substantial resources the country has allocated to short to medium range air defense, including a large batch of modern and proven Russian Tor-M1s specifically designed to take cruise missiles down. Close to a hundred cruise missile were intercepted by Serbia many years ago with an air-defense net of no compare to what Iran currently has in store waiting. Iran has close to 30 full batteries, than mean close to a thousand ready-to-fire missiles. The US has roughly the ability to produce 300 to 400 tomahawks a year, do the math about how long it would take them to deal with Iran if a first strike is not enough.
But despite ALL i say here, in the endgame, of course, and as i said already but you must have missed : Iran's infrastructure, both military and civilian, would be reduced to rubble sooner or later, if one day some US govt decides to go full force against Iran no matter the cost. Of course, one cannot stand a war of attrition against a superpower such as the US, only a fool would think that, and I'm not one of those.
"the US has been rather clear that if Iran attempts to assemble nuclear weapons, the US will forcefully respond to stop the effort." ==> empty words until proven otherwise, since we've been hearing such "clear remarks" for almost half a decade now from both republican and democrat administrations, I will allow myself to doubt them. Time will tell who does what, but I'm skeptical to say the least.
yes, your headpiece is stuffed with straw.
and yet when and if the words are proven not to have been empty, will you be happy?
I'll be far happier to allow circumstances to prevent the conditions for finding out never to arise and have Iran reach some deal with the world that insures that this regime never tries to assemble nuclear weapons and is never attacked
the answer is right above my last comment : "But despite ALL i say here, in the endgame, of course, and as i said already but you must have missed : Iran's infrastructure, both military and civilian, would be reduced to rubble sooner or later, if one day some US govt decides to go full force against Iran no matter the cost." ==> considering this, i would tend to say that i agree with you, don't you think ? or do you imagine i would love to see that outcome arise ?
Or how about that one, from another previous comment from myself : "And if you ask me, assuming internal unrest doesn't happen soon, Iran will end up more isolated than ever in the coming years, with either ultimately reaching the virtual nuclear weapon state, or performing an actual nuclear test if they finally pull out of the NPT, North Korea style. And its people will suffer even more dire consequences of the subsequent containment the country will go through..." ==> do you think I'm happy about Iran's situation in general no matter the outcome ?
PS : yes, Anonymous January 27, 2013 at 10:36 PM, Anonymous January 27, 2013 at 9:54 PM and Anonymous January 27, 2013 at 6:32 PM were all written by me, sorry you couldn't know since i don't post with a profile, my bad. All i was saying all along was : the US is not in a favorable position to strike, but they will choke the Iranian people ever harder than now with the sanctions, the day it comes to quarantine Iran, NK style. No matter what, Iran is in a lose-lose situation, thanks to our great Mullah, once more.
Post a Comment