Building a Case for Attack on Iran’s Nuclear Sites (Jim Lobe Log, Haaretz

Amid renewed speculation after President Bush’s Knesset speech last week that he may yet order an attack on Iran before he leaves office, particularly if Sen. Obama should win the November elections, it appears that the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) is preparing the case for why an attack — either by the U.S. or Israel — on Tehran’s nuclear facilities might not be as calamitous as most analysts, including top Pentagon brass, believe. WINEP, of course, was founded by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and has acted as an integral part of the so-called Israel Lobby since its launch.

The case is previewed in an article by Yossi Melman that appeared in the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz Thursday. It consists mainly of an interview of WINEP’s Patrick Clawson, co-author with another WINEP analyst, Michael Eisenstadt, of an upcoming paper entitled “The Last Resort.” Clawson concludes that fears about possible Iranian retaliation are exaggerated and that, in fact, “Iran’s options for responding are limited and weak.”..

Building a Case for Attack on Iran’s Nuclear Sites (Jim Lobe Log)

Any moment now, the Iranian challenge will be added to the list of things too serious to be left to politicians.

"Iran, Cuba, Venezuela – these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union," Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has said. Factually, he is correct. They are much smaller in area than the Soviet Union was. That did not stop the Republican candidate, John McCain, from accusing him of "reckless judgment." And Obama says: The minuscule size of these rogue countries makes easier the decision to talk with their leaders directly, because if the U.S. sat down with the USSR even at the height of the Cold War, why not Iran? And McCain says: That is a bogus equation. And he is right as well.

A fateful strategic issue – certainly for the State of Israel – became a plaything this week for the American election circus. The Iranian threat is now the Iranian debate: to threaten or talk, to attack or wait. On the one hand, it’s a fascinating discussion that clarifies the difference between the viewpoints and approaches of the two presidential candidates. On the other hand, it’s a barren discussion that underscores how disconnected the election campaign is from the reality determined in Tehran and Washington.

President George W. Bush has nearly eight months left, and anyone who presumes to say at this point whether he will use force to stop Iran’s nuclear program, or will pass the problem on to the next administration, is suffering from baseless presumption: It’s doubtful whether Bush himself knows the answer to that question…

Will he or won’t he attack? It’s doubtful Bush knows (Rosner’s Blog/Haaretz)

The most aggressive posturing and accusations against Iran, yet issued by Washington, signal the rapid closure of the window of opportunity for peace which opened up following the release of the US’ National Intelligence Estimate in December 07 concluding that there was no evidence of a nuclear weaponisation programme in Iran. This revelation which was concordant with the IAEA’s own repeated assessment over 5 years of intrusive inspections, and which had been held from publication by the Vice President Cheney for over a year with the aim of altering its key findings, put a spanner in the frightfully accelerating wheel to another war and a potential inferno in the Middle East and beyond. However, it seems that the war camp led by Cheney have regained the lost ground and are furtively peddling for war before Bush leaves office next January. Bush’s speech to the Israeli Knesset, 15th May, evoking, once again, the spectre of the world war, likening Iran to 1938 pre-war Nazi Germany, and rebuking Obama’s willingness for dialogue with Iran on par with “appeasement of Hitler”, followed by the reporting of the Israeli army radio of behind the doors expressions of intent by the US to attack Iran before the end of his term, has sounded the alarm bells across a wide spectrum of political observers and analysts…

The War Camp in Death Throes is Intent on Striking Iran (By Mehrnaz Shahabi in ICH)


One thought on “Building a Case for Attack on Iran’s Nuclear Sites (Jim Lobe Log, Haaretz

  1. Nu MARK RUTTE ‘vrijdenker’ is geworden (wel een beetje een lachertje hoor) kannie misschien wat kritische berichtjes van dit blog tentoonstellen in zijn mooie vrije fractiekamertje in Den Haag…

Geef een reactie

Vul je gegevens in of klik op een icoon om in te loggen. logo

Je reageert onder je account. Log uit /  Bijwerken )

Google+ photo

Je reageert onder je Google+ account. Log uit /  Bijwerken )


Je reageert onder je Twitter account. Log uit /  Bijwerken )

Facebook foto

Je reageert onder je Facebook account. Log uit /  Bijwerken )


Verbinden met %s