"More than 50% chance of attack on Iran" JPOST

 "The chance that Israel will launch a military strike against Iran before next July is over 50 percent, according to an article to be published in the upcoming issue of the journal theAtlantic. The article's author, Jeffrey Goldberg, gleaned this information from interviews he conducted over the last year-and-a-half with forty current and past Israeli decision makers."  JPOST

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jeffrey Goldberg's upcoming article in the "Atlantic" is summarized here by JPOST.   IMO this is about right.  The only question is timing.   Without specific knowledge of the decision on the date it is impossible to do more than guess.

Goldberg doesn't think that the US would eventually be drawn into such a war?  That is foolish.  The escalation ladder that would be climbed would be likely to include attacks on US forces and a strike on Israel would be probable from some quarter.  That would create a political situation in which US entry into the war would be likely.  

I thought several years ago that the US was on the verge of attacking Iran.  The Goldberg article tends to confirm that and informs us that President Bush himself put the brakes on such an attack at that time.  pl

http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=184401

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2010/08/an_israeli_stri/

Comments

[Norbert M. Salamon]

A scary analysis of such an event:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LH12Ak01.html

Weep!

[Jackie]

Pat,
Thank you for picking this up. I read the Washington Note before heading over here.

Do you think Israel's leaders are rational? Or are they paranoid?

No good can come from bombing Iran.

[fnord]

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1969/12/the-point-of-no-return/8186/6/

its way strange.

[FB Ali]

Steve Clemens's article (at the second link given by Col Lang) is a 'must read'.

He thinks that doubts about the sanity and rationality of Iran's leadership may be driving Israel's leaders. What the article actually makes clear is that it is Israel's leaders who have lost all sanity and rationality.

As for the US, it is ridiculous to believe that it can stay out of a war against Iran initiated by Israel. Iran, like the rest of the world, and especially the Muslim world, will believe that Israel could not have launched such an attack without US permission. The blowback would force the US to act, even if it had hoped to stand on the sidelines.

[samuelburke]

col. Lang you are being quoted in the cuban press by no other than Fidel.

he claims that because of u.n security council resolution 1929 the united states will be the first to attack.

what say ye about this resolutions restriction ability on israel?

[Patrick Lang]

samuelburke

I read Spanish. What's the citation in the press? pl

[Andy]

Here is some excellent insight from a former director of the US Army War College. He is far braver than most of you reading this.

http://mycatbirdseat.com/2010/08/israel%E2%80%99s-pillars-of-samson-not-quite-armageddon-but%E2%80%A6/

[Patrick Lang]

Andy

you are not our usual Andy. Pick another name.

Sabrozky is not "a former director of the US Army War College." He was director of studies at the Strategic Studies Institute." This is part of the War College. The head of the War College is titled, "Commandant" and is always an active duty general officer. pl

[Stormcrow]

Here is some excellent insight from a former director of the US Army War College.

Either "Andy" didn't actually read the author profile at the end of that piece, or else he deliberately misquoted it.

[fnord]

"Andy", that link involves a lot of assumptions that US military folks are tools and unable to make their own evaluations. the problem at the moment is that we seem to have a olletive israeli/likudnik psychosis emerging, at the same time as israelis run by a bunch of thugs that would make berlusconi proud. And they in turn have a dispropotional power over us decision making. So, they have the possibility of defeating the us president at home, through financial ties. the political problem is how do you deal with an entrenched strong opposition who have lost reason.

[fnord]

sorry for typo, the c on my keyboard is gone...

[PS]

Based on everything that Sabrosky is putting out on the web, I don't recognize the professor I had many years ago. A significant omission in the bio cited in the articles could be a clue that something changed significantly.

[BillWade]

"Andy's" linked article was written Dr. Alan Sabrosky, in the first paragraph below he quotes but never tells us who he's quoting:

"As the US edges toward an unprovoked and utterly needless war with Iran, some remarks by an eminent and experienced observer of that part of the world caught my attention. First, he noted that “Israel and the US realize that the next war will burn much of the Middle East and may well spell the end of Israel.”"

Even one of his readers asks him to identify the quoted individual but Sabrosky has yet to do so. It would be interesting to find out just who that is and read the whole article.

I remember after I retired from the Air Force in 1989 getting a letter just a few months later telling me to be prepared to come back on short notice. The whole country was abuzz with war talk. Am I missing something, there just doesn't seem to be much hysteria about an Iran attack except amongst the neocons?

[b]

On the Goldberg piece:

It is pure propaganda.

It picks up the same talking points Goldberg used to promote war on Iraq.

Saddam is irrational - the Iranians are irrational
Saddam has WMDs - Iran has a nuke weapons program
The Arabs want us to defeat Saddam - the Arabs want us to bomb Iran

It is a bunch of nonsense. There is no reason for the U.S. or Israel to go to war with Iran.

Netanjahu will not attack Iran. Goldberg's piece is part of a campaign to make the U.S. believe that he will do so. But all that is only a feint to make the U.S. do it itself.

[Robert]

Col,

You can try this link for the article referred to by samuelburke. It is in english.

http://www.granma.cu/ingles/reflections-i/11agost-reflections.html

[samuelburke]

"Los ex oficiales CIA Phil Giraldi y Larry Johnson; W. Patrick Lang, de las Fuerzas Especiales de la Agencia de Inteligencia de la Defensa; Ray McGovern, de la Agencia de Inteligencia de la Armada y de la CIA, y otros ex altos oficiales con largos años de servicio, tienen razón cuando advierten a Obama que el Primer Ministro de Israel tiene proyectado un ataque sorpresa con la idea de obligar a Estados Unidos a la guerra contra Irán.

Pero con la Resolución 1929 del Consejo de Seguridad de Naciones Unidas, Israel logró que Estados Unidos se comprometiera a ser el primero en atacar."

IT SAYS THAT YOU, GIRALDI, MCGOVERN, AND OTHER EX INTEL GUYS ARE WARNING OUR PRES CORRECTLY ABOUT THE ISRAELIS ATTACKING IRAN BUT BECAUSE OF UN SEC COUNCIL RES 1929 IF THERE IS AN ATTACK IT WILL THE U.S THAT ATTACKS.

[Patrick Lang]

samuelburke

I don't think 1229 woulld force us to attack Iran. pl

[WILL]

Resolution 1929 allows boarding & inspection of Persico ships. All states have always considered such to be acts of war & Fidel Castro Ruz apparently thinks the Iranians will not stand still for it, thus triggering a war.

[Phil Giraldi]

The only thing in the Goldberg piece that I believe to be absolutely true is that Washington has already given the order not to shoot down Israeli planes under any circumstances. I do not think that the US can avoid getting involved if the Israelis start fighting (which might be their intention in the first place), nor do I think that Israel is overly concerned about a possible rift with its great patron in Washington. Obama and Hillary have said repeatedly that Israel is free to make its own security decisions and Congress and the media would immediately jump on the Israeli bandwagon while the American people would be led to believe that somehow Israel was the victim. The only inhibition on Israeli unilateralism might come from Hezbollah.

[walrus]

I can't even be bothered to read Goldbergs whole article. It is riddled with assumptions and hypocrisies.

What, precisely, is a "nuclearized" Iran????????

[walrus]

I should add that my opinion of the Goldberg article is that he is trying to bolster the "Israel has no choice" argument among the Goyim.

[J]

Israeli Gilad Atzmon is highlighting Anthony Lawson's video on his website.

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/anthony-lawson-double-vendetta-the-insanity-of-the-iran-conf.html

Anthony Lawsons' Video --Double Vendetta — The Insanity of the Iran Confrontation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhp3kJv1H9I

[elkern]

This time there would be no "War for Oil" fig-leaf.

If the best argument for US bombing Iran now is "because Israel will/might if we don't", there will be no way to deny the cost of the "special relationship" afterwards. Either the GOI & the Lobby are totally crazy, or they figure that the US is a gun with only one bullet left.

[WILL]

Stephen Walt reads Goldberg like a book (much like the tusk one's read)

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/08/11/mainstreaming_war_with_iran

[citizen]

I have to second Will's recommendation of the Walt article. Walt's statement that J. Goldberg isn't just reporting on reality, he is trying to create reality by normalizing discussion of an attack of Iran. I believe that this is part of his purpose with this article. That said, only two points that were of noteworthy, in an otherwise reiteration of a common discourse a) Netanyahu's daddy issues (but it is well known that he comes from a Jabotinskyite dynasty) b) Bush's reluctance to go to war with Iran. That second part was the biggest eyebrow raiser for me.