Israeli Attacks on Syria are a Message to Iran, "Obama Doctrine" Fades

Israel has attacked Syria twice in recent days.

Now what?

Israel is taking proactive steps to ensure its defense.  While there are two sides to every story, history shows that pre-emptive strikes by the Israelis have been defensive in nature.

The latest strikes against Syria don't appear to be related to the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons  against its own people, even as devastating as those reports are.  

These Israeli strikes appear to be a preemptive move directed directed at a shipment of advanced surface-to-surface missiles from Iran that Israel believed was intended for the Islamic, militant (and decidedly anti-Israel) Hezbollah.

According to the New York Times, the most recent strike was "aimed at disrupting the arms pipeline that runs from Syria to Hezbollah . . . highlighting the mounting stakes for Hezbollah and Israel as Syria becomes more chaotic."

The Times argues that Iran and Hezbollah have a keen interest in delivering advanced weapons to Hezbollah.  This is true, the Times argues, because Syria has been an effective channel for funneling weapons from Iran to Hezbollah, and if Assad loses power, that channel will be lost.

The problem lies in the reaction to Israel's actions by other countries.  Syria has already declared the Israeli attacks as a Declaration of War.  

But, with a civil war raging, it appears unlikely that Syria itself would be so bold as to respond with an attack directly on Israel.  Assad knows the Israeli response would be devastating and could launch the entire region into a major conflict, possibly drawing the United States in as well.

The recent Israeli strikes on Syria are a strategic warning to Syria, but more so to Iran.  

This is a proxy statement delivered to Iran through Syria saying, "Israel will take military action if we believe our security is threatened, and we won't wait until hundreds or thousands of our people are killed before we do so."

Iranian leaders like to rattle their sabres, but do they really want to get into a shooting war with Israel, and by proxy, the United States?

When is a Red Line REALLY a Red Line?

In the U.S., President Obama said that using chemical weapons in Syria would be "crossing a red line."  That presumably means that the US would act if it could be proved that Assad used chemical weapons against its people.  

Is this the "Obama Doctrine?" or was it simply an off-the-cuff remark?  Barry Pavel, a former defense policy adviser to President Obama has said "I'm not convinced [the President saying "red line"] was thought through."  Obama Doctrine or not, he's stuck with that position (unless he wishes to back-pedal, but that seems unlikely.

Obama has painted himself into a corner in regard to Syria, but Israel's preemptive strikes against Iranian missiles bound for Hezbollah may shift world focus away from the "Obama Doctrine" to the real actions of Israel, which may end up doing Obama's work for him.

US Fears Impending Israeli Attack on Iran over Nukes

United States officials are  worried that Israel may attack Iran's nuclear facilities at any given moment, according to an Israeli televison station.

This fear is being driven by the union of Shaul Mofaz and his Kadima party with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

United States officials are  worried that Israel may attack Iran's nuclear facilities at any given moment, according to an Israeli televison station, 

This fear is being driven by the union of Shaul Mofaz and his Kadima party with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

According to a story on the Arutz Sheva website (referencing the Channel 10 item) U.S. officials believe a Likud-Kadima government could make a quick decision about an Israeli attack on Iran at any moment, even before the U.S. presidential elections in November.

The Americans have been operating under the assumption that early elections would be held in Israel which would likely postpone an Israeli attack of Iran at least until after the election. 

With Israeli politics stabilized and the current government likely to end its term as scheduled, the situation has changed and the US is worried.

It is generally accepted by the US, European and Gulf Arab states that Iran is developing a nuclear weapons program, not simply peaceful, energy applications.

The position of the Israeli minister of defense remains that "as long as Iran poses a threat to Israel with its nuclear program, all options are on the table."

Defense Minster Ehud Barak recently said, "I believe it is well understood in Washington, D.C., as well as in Jerusalem that as long as there is an existential threat to our people, all options to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons should remain on the table,"

"A military option is not a simple one," Barak added. "It would be complicated with certain associated risks. But a radical Islamic Republic of Iran with nuclear weapons would be far more dangerous both for the region and, indeed, the world."

Recent reports indicate that President Barack Obama is prepared to make a major concession to Iran on uranium enrichment which would allow five percent enrichment if Iran  takes other major steps to curb its ability to develop nuclear weapons.

(Summarized and excerpted from Arutz Sheva, Israel National News)

American Truism #15.

Experts Discuss the Dire Consequences of an Israeli or US Attack on Iran

As I've said in a previous blog post, I understand Israel's concern over Iran possibly acquiring nuclear weapons.  And, I understand why Israel (or other neighbors of Iran) might want to launch a "preemptive strike" in order to keep Iran from weaponizing its atomic energy program.

Yet, the ramifications of an Israeli (or US) attack on Iran could be devastating for many reasons.  Here are a few of the things that such an attack might prompt and the people who've talked about these possibilities:

• Oil could skyrocket to $500 / barrel.
• All-out war could break out in the region.
• Iran, which hasn't weaponized it's nukes, might feel pressured to do so.

Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson 

Former Chief of Staff for US Secretary of State Colin Powell

• Iran is prepared to launch 11,000 missiles on Israel and the United States.

Ghazanfar Roknabadi

Iranian Ambassador to Lebanon

• Iran could close the Strait of Hormuz with mines, driving up the cost of oil.
• Extensive conflict could break out between Israel and Hezbollah, or Israel and Hamas.

Mark Fitzpatrick

Director, Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Program,
International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS)

• Iran and groups like Hezbollah might engage in terror attacks following an attack on Iran.

Daniel Byman

Counter-terrorism Expert, Brookings Institute

American Truism # 10.



Midnight Approaches: Israel Prepares for Attack on Iran with Bunker Buster Request

Following President Obama’s address to AIPAC in which he gave the “green light” to Israel for an attack on Iran, Israel has now requested advanced "bunker-buster" bombs and refueling planes from the United States, according to a Reuters report.

These bunker buster bombs and planes would significantly improve Israel’s ability to carry out successful bombing attacks on Iran's underground nuclear sites.

That's not just MY opinion.  That supposition comes straight from an unnamed Israeli official.

As reported by Reuters, it appears that the US received the request for bunker busters and refueling planes during Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's recent visit to Washington.

Other reports claim the US might supply the hardware, but only under the condition that Israel promises not to attack Iran THIS YEAR.

JUST NOT THIS YEAR?  But, 2013 would be fine?  Sounds like a political calculation on the part of Team Obama.

I’m not making a judgment here.  When all is said and done, maybe Israel has no other choice.  I believe it’s possible for a rational person to come to that conclusion, yet recent events seem to indicate that Israel is hell bent on destroying Iran’s nuclear capabilities, WITH or WITHOUT the aid and comfort of the United States.

In a recent article musing upon the entire Israel / Iran / US relationship and likely outcomes, Jeffrey Goldberg, national correspondent for THE ATLANTIC  noted, “I don't believe the leaders of Iran are Nazis, but they certainly do talk like Nazis, and they've oriented their foreign and defense policies around the extermination of the Jewish state."

A White House spokesman denied that requests for bunker busters and refueling planes were made during the Netanyahu / Obama meetings.  But, we all know that could simply be semantics and that back channel discussions could have already taken place.   This alternative channel may very well have been Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

The White House wouldn’t confirm or deny a possible DOD possible role, saying only, "I would refer you to other officials.”

Unnamed sources on the US side confirm that these conversations DID take place between Netanyahu and Panetta.  The same source claims no deals were finalized.

While many agree that Obama’s AIPAC speech was indeed a “green light” to attack Iran and its nuclear capabilities, it still puts the Obama administration in a tight spot.

An Israeli-Iranian war would create tough political sledding for Obama in this US election year.  Such a conflict would almost certainly send oil and gas prices skyrocketing, a condition which hold great political peril for Obama.  Yet, being seen as weak on Iran and lukewarm in his support of Israel could be even worse for Obama.

None of the parties involved wants to see an Israeli-Iranian conflict.  And, while its neighbors are no great fans of Iran, a unilateral attack on the trouble-making nation might be all the excuse its neighbors need to unleash “attacks of solidarity” on Israel.

Pressure is growing on all sides, and no one appears to be willing to stand down or blink, which may make armed conflict between Israel and Iran inevitable.

While unlikely, one possibility is that taking recent events into account, Iran could decide to make a preemptive strike of its own against Israel.  This is unlikely because it would allow Israel to strike at Iran with practically no limits while giving Iran’s neighbors the cover they’d need to sit on the sidelines.  Still, the behavior of Iran’s political and religious leadership rarely follows conventional wisdom.

Obama is between a rock and a rockier place, unlikely to get any softer in the coming weeks.  He can’t be the president who allowed Iran to have a nuclear bomb.  He also can’t be the president that allowed Israel to launch a preemptive strike on Iran.  And the LAST thing he wants to do is commit American military power and lives into a new Middle East conflict.

American Truism #9.

Obama Gives Israel the Green Light to Attack Iran

In a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) , President Obama today gave Israel the green light to launch a preemptive strike on Iran to prevent the Iranians from fully developing their nuclear weapons capabilities.

On CNN, Obama's remarks were portrayed opposite this analysis, both by the CNN host and by her guests.  They characterized Obama’s remarks as too soft and non-committal and critical of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Here’s what Obama said to AIPAC:

“We all prefer to resolve this issue diplomatically.  Having said that, Iran’s leaders should have no doubt about the resolve of the United States, just as they should not doubt Israel’s sovreign right to make its own decisions about what is required to meet its security needs.

"I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say.  That includes all elements of American power . . . including a military effort to be prepared for any contingency.

"We are investing in new capabilities. We’re providing Israel with more advanced technology, the types of products and systems that only go to our closest friends and allies.  Make no mistake, we will do what it takes to preserve Israel’s qualitative military edge because Israel must always have the ability to defend itself, by itself, against any threat.  

Later in the same address, President Obama said, ""For the sake of Israel's security, America's security, and the peace and security of the world, now is not the time for bluster; now is the time to let our increased pressure sink in. … Now is the time to heed that timeless advice from Teddy Roosevelt: Speak softly, but carry a big stick."

These remarks have been interpreted as meaning that Obama is loathe to use military action against Iran, and that he is at odds with the Israelis.

I disagree.

I believe this is Obama's way of creating "cover" for himself in the event that Israel decides it must attack Iran before it is nuclear capable.

According to CNN reports, earlier in the day at the AIPAC conference, Israeli President Shimon Peres warned "Iran will be stopped."  Israel "does not seek" war he said, adding: "Peace is always our first option. But, if we are forced to fight, trust me, we shall prevail."

Speaking just before Obama, Peres said,"The United States and Israel share the same goal: to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. There is no space between us. Our message is clear: Iran will not develop a nuclear weapon."

"Iran is an evil, cruel, morally corrupt regime," Peres said. "It is based on destruction. It is an affront to human dignity. Iran is the center, the sponsor, the financier of world terror. Iran is a danger to the entire world. It threatens Berlin as well as Madrid, Delhi as well as Bangkok." 

Israel and Iran are on an all-but-assured collision course.  The Israeli government will NOT allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons, but after his rhetorical attacks on the Bush administration for its actions in Iraq, Obama cannot afford to be seen as launching a possibly unnecessary attack on Iran, even in the defense of Israel.

However, as he has intimated today, Obama will not intervene if Israel determines that a preemptive strike against Iran is necessary.

Look for a strike within 90 days or less.

American Truism # 7.