"Renewed Brawl in Israel Over Iran Attack?" by Harper

 

The below item, posted today by the Institute for National Security Studies, an Israeli think tank with close ties to the IDF leadership, indicates that there is renewed concern that Netanyahu will revive plans to launch a preventive unilateral strike on Iran early next year if he is reelected.  I am told that the publication of details of this wargame, which includes a warning that an Israeli strike could lead to an out-of-control escalation ultimately triggering World War III is part of a push-back, once again, by sane elements in the Israeli national security establishment who distrust Bibi Netanyahu as a messianic lunatic who could lead Israel and the world into a devastating war.  This comes at the same time that other Israeli national security insiders are revealing that Bibi tried to launch a preventive strike against Iran in 2010, but was rebuffed by the IDF leadership and others because he did not have the go-ahead from his Security Cabinet or the Knesset.  British independent TV Channel 4 is going to air a broadcast tonight detailing the 2010 attempt to launch a preventive attack, and just how close things came to a hot war.

http://www.inss.org.il/publications.php?cat=21&incat=&read=10461

Comments

[Matthew]

Col: How much of Netanyahu's calculation depends on Iran not fighting back?

The illogic is migraine-inducing: The Mullahs are so irrational that they cannot be deterred, yet so rational they will not respond once attacked.

[Medicine Man]

So in practice the notion of Iranian leadership being dominated by messianic lunatics turns out to be pure projection.

[E L]

Oh... Something's happening other than the US election?Thanks for waking me up.

[Charles I]

None. He's certain the U.S. will intervene once the shite starts to fly

[Margaret Steinfels]

Netanyahu is at it again, saying Israel will go it alone!
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/06/world/middleeast/netanyahu-uses-tough-tone-on-possible-iran-strike.html?ref=world&_r=0

[kassandra]

Preventive strike? Preventive strike? Isn't that ziospeak for an unprovoked attack on another sovereign state?

[LeaNder]

To start with, I would like to apologize for ever expressing mistrust no matter how carefully I clothed in "dislike" for Harper. I admit at its basis it was inquisitorial, are you or have you ever been?

But is there anyone out there, who can recommend a live feed of US TV life feeds from the Republican pro Romney angle? Ideally with link? Does Fox news have a live feed?

[Matthew]

It was a "sneak attack" when the Japanese Empire did it.

[Augustin L]

Col Lang, I previously commented on the possible irregularities emanating from the technomorphing of the electoral process. I have received many video showing what seems to be electronic ''glitches, shenanigans''. Call it what you will, some of the private electronic voting machines are now casting a serious doubt on the outcome of the election. Here's one of the videos filmed today by a software developer where the machine switches the Obama vote to Romney: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QdpGd74DrBM

[LeaNder]

Everyone with a UK IP or with an option to switch to one can watch the documentary Harper mentions above online:

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/4od#3437374

[confusedponderer]

Elaborations of the (lack of) legality of the Iraq war by Bush the Dumb are helpful in that regard. Here's an excerpt from one article that I think is legally accurate:

The international legal rules governing the use of force take as their starting point Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter, which prohibits any nation from using force against another. The charter allows for only two exceptions to this rule: when force is required in self-defense (Article 51) or when the Security Council authorizes the use of force to protect international peace and security (Chapter VII).

from: http://worldpress.org/specials/iraq/

The absence of a UN mandate for an attack on Iran, and the absence of anything that could be attempted to be spun into one (like those 'grave consequences') leaves as Israel's only justification self defence.

"The first exception, self-defense, has long been discussed and debated among international legal scholars. Although the text of Article 51 explicitly provides only for "the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs," over the years, scholars have expanded the required trigger for self-defense to include both when an armed attack occurs and when an armed attack is imminent. The legal definition of "imminent" has grown out of an 1837 incident in which British troops attacked the ship Caroline, which U.S. citizens were using to take supplies to Canadian rebels fighting British rule. In his much-quoted analysis of the confrontation years later, then-Secretary of State Daniel Webster argued that the use of force in self-defense is justified when the need for action is "instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." Webster's criteria subsequently became the standard in international law."

IMO none of these conditions are met in the case of Iran. Even if Iran has a nuclear weapons program it does not amount to that level of threat. As 'capability based threats' necessarily do, this remains an abstract threat, that may manifest itself, at some point, or not, and only will if the assumptions of such intent prove correct. It is not the sort of threat that is overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation. Israeli histrionics notwithstanding, the Iranians are just months away from a bomb for ... at least a decade or so.

So an Israeli strike on Iran would be indeed an act of aggression, "the supreme international crime"

That said, since the likes of Alberto 'Quaint and Obsolete' Gonzales and Bush 43 got away with their crimes, I see little reason to assume that Bibi would fare any worse than they did. America for one, would have it's politicos look forward and not into the past on this one as well.

[Babak Makkinejad]

One of the international actors for having facilitated any potential attack on Iran by the United States is Germany.

Will Germany, or indeeed any of the EU states, sanction the United States in case of an illegal (non-UN mandated) attack on Iran by her?

[confusedponderer]

I have no idea whether Merkel will stand up to US pressure. So far she doesn't have a record that inspires confidence in that regard. A pity. I would prefer a different stance from 'my party's candidate'.

Schröder, in 2003, did stand up to great US pressure, rightly so I think, if, as to be expected with him, for all the wrong reasons. Obama being a so-called moderate would make him more difficult to resist than the known nut that was Bush, if a decision to not go along with a US attack was made.

German policy towards Israel has always been rather accommodating, also as a result of German guilt, and I have no idea also to which degree that extends to an Israeli attack on Iran.

Again, I'd like to see us to be more firm in that regard. Our ancestors crimes of the past don't oblige us to give Bibi a banquet check for folly and excess.

[Babak Makkinejad]

I tsake it then that:

1- Germany will not sanction US if she attacks Iran.

2- Germany will not sanction Israel in the event of an unprovoked attack (illegal, as you would term it) against Iran.

3- EU will not sanction the United States if she illegally attacks Iran (without UN Mandate).

I submit to you then that this notion of "illegal war" that you, and evidently many others in EU, are entertaining is devoid of any content (legal or political).

For Law without Sanctions to uphold it is not Law at all.

It is soley used by certain EU citizens to journalistically beat US on the head for her policies.

At the moment, EU is waging an economic war against Iran - is that also not illegal?

[LeaNder]

I can understand why you mention Germany, Babak, if I may?

"Will Germany, or indeed any of the EU states, sanction the United States in case of an illegal (non-UN mandated) attack on Iran by her?"

No way, nobody would dare to challenge the US in Europe.

But I also think there are limits to what Europe is able to spend on war, maybe that is part of the good message. Let's hope that Obama means what he says, no matter how slowly and carefully, and that his promise to attack Iran is really an ultimately rhetorical last choice. And that his main objectives lie more inside America.

The bigger problem I see, is that the hyped up fear of another Holocaust in Israel could spin out of control, and that Obama doesn't have the backbone to stand up against being pulled into it.

Besides the Iranian interviewed at the end of the channel 4 documentary, Harper alluded to above, is that Iran would make no difference between the US and Israel. No one would believe this can happen without secret US consent.

Which brings me to my last point, doesn't the narrative out of Israel ultimately leave you with a doubt about US "real" intention? The question could Obama's Pentagon in fact be secretly planning an attack hand in hand with Israel, only Israel is more honest about it? If he wants it or not, to a certain degree he has to support this interpretation indirectly, since he needs to appease the pro-Israel hawks inside the US.

I think, if you look closer at Jeffrey Goldberg's articles for instance you'll find statements that have to leave you with this impression. I always wondered if they were deliberate.

[turcopolier]

LeaNder

BHO has not promised to attack Iran. What he said was so carefully hedged 'round with caveats and conditions as to be meaningless. he will do what he thinks needed by the US, not by Israel. The "Pentagon" as you call it is not "Obama's Pentagon." People like Dempsey are not the property of politicians. You can be sure that the JCS and various US unified commands have prepared the appropriate plans. Given the stuation, they would be negligent in their duty if they had not. That does not in any way imply an intention or a desire to implement such plans. I am surprised at the lack of sophistication in European thinking about the way governments actually work. You seem to think that we are all living in a cheap novel. pl

[LeaNder]

"as to be expected with him, for all the wrong reasons."

Exactly my feeling, confused. Election?

"Again, I'd like to see us to be more firm in that regard."

It's in the process of developing, I think. Have you noticed that Richard C. Schneider's comments out of Jerusalem have been carefully critical and much more factual than the take by the rest of the news crew?

Besides, although she probably would have followed Bush to war, she has followed Obama on Iran too, never mind her closeness to Bush jun, and the fact that her relationship with Obama is considered less close than to Bush.

Back to Baback, I think it is hard to find a German politician that is not more or less an adherent of Atlanticism, Merkel strictly is. It will all depend on Barack Obama.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanticism

[Babak Makkinejad]

Thank you for your comments.

I believe that this conversation has established my point; namely Germany, and indeed EU states, leaders, and citizens have no moral, legal, or political standing to criticize the United States for any of her policies - with real or imagined intentions soley based on UN.

Individauls may question US policies based on moral and religious grounds - but that is different.

In regards to Israel, Shoah, Jews etc.: the fact remains that for the last 2500 years, Iran has been the only place on Earth with continuous Jewish presence.

[Baghdad was another place before the Arab Nationalist - modeling themselves after Europe - got to it.]

EU states have nothing to teach Iran in this respect and given their histiorical treatment of Jews over the last 500 years it is best for them to keep quiet.

I stopped reading Goldberg many years ago; he is a yellow-journalist, in my opinion.

[Fred]

CP, you keep mentioning the UN and legal rulings. The Israeli government has followed UN resolutions only when it suits them That’s been true ever since the Stern Gang assassinated Count Bernadotte in 1948 . One of the architects of that, Yitzhak Shamir, was not only not held accountable but became Prime Minister of Israel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folke_Bernadotte

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(group)

[LeaNder]

Babak, the US not a signatory of the ICC. Thus ultimately there is no legal basis for Europe to challenge the US.

I have not thought about these things before 911, ever, and I have absolutely no basis in speaking about it either as a German or a European, I can only twist together limited information I gained in the past decade.

The first time I saw the larger context of the problem we are facing, even before I read Pat's blog regularly, was when I became aware of the US Internet hoax against the Israeli military historian Martin van Grevald. I have no idea about his field, but it felt wrong he was attacked with an obvious hoax, thus I took a closer look.

Again, I don't have even a limited idea of Pat's field or expertise, but when I looked at the hoax closer I had the impression this is what could have triggered it:

Van Grevald did an interview with a magazine in the Netherlands's. The interview with van Grevald, is available in an English translation on the US conspiracy networks on the web. The people interviewing him in the end in all innocence (a passage that wasn't in the translation on the American net) asked him how the Netherlands, which ultimately means Europe, if you consider it from a macro perspective, could help Israel. His answer was simply: No, thank you, Israel can help itself. ... Which obviously isn't true, but it may well be true considering the self-image Israel created over the last decades.

When I told van Grevald about this in a private email exchange, suggesting this could well have triggered the larger hoax, our correspondence ended abruptly.

Let's wait and see how Israeli's trained to live with war since it's creation will respond in January 2013 to US elections, they cannot afford to loose US support, if they reelect Netanyahu than we are all may be in big troubles. And strictly I do not care much for myself, but I would prefer if my parents could end their lives without further upheavals, into which they were born.

[Babak Makkinejad]

Let us hope so.

By the way, was that the same interview in which he stated, when questioned, that he only trusted Persians (Iranians)?