Bombing Iran may appear justified, but would be sheer madness Read more: http://www.

cancel2 2022

Canceled
Bombing Iran may appear justified, but would be sheer madness

You have been warned, Netanyahu is doing his damndest to involve the US in a new war.

By Max Hastings

Last updated at 9:19 AM on 7th March 2012

As if the world did not have troubles enough, we now face a real threat that Israel will launch an assault on Iran’s nuclear sites. The implications of such action are uncertain but assuredly immense. It would precipitate an open-ended conflict between Iran and the West. Oil prices could surge as the vital tanker conduit through the Strait of Hormuz came under attack. Much of the Muslim world would back Iran, not from affection for its mullahs but because an attack would be seen as new evidence of Western partisanship for Israel: a hated foe — and illegal nuclear power.



article-0-00A6ABC01000044C-8_634x303.jpg


Israeli firepower: There is a very real threat that Israel may launch an attack on Iranian nuclear sites

It is wretchedly clear that the decision whether to bomb will be made not by a cool calculation of strategic risk and advantage in Washington and Jerusalem, but instead by politics. President Obama’s message to Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in Washington this week was not, as it should have been: ‘If you commit this reckless act, you will be on your own,’ but instead: ‘Please don’t do it before our November election.’

The implications of such action are uncertain but assuredly immense - it would precipitate an open-ended conflict between Iran and the West

Some of Obama’s own advisers are cynical enough to urge him to back Israeli action, because they think it would be popular with American voters. He would instantly confound his Republican rivals, who accuse him of being soft on Iran. Privately, Obama yearns to come down hard on Netanyahu, whom he dislikes intensely. But the U.S. President does not dare do this when his own re-election may hinge on the three per cent of American voters who are Jewish.

Some people — in Britain as well as America — say to sceptics like me: ‘How can you oppose Israel acting to defend itself when Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, recently described the Jewish state as ‘a cancerous tumour that must be cut out’. Few of us doubt that Iran is a rogue state led by dangerous fanatics.

article-0-12018C23000005DC-64_634x303.jpg


Diplomacy: Some of Obama's advisers are urging him to back Israeli action, because they think it would be popular with American voters. However, Obama is said to privately dislike Netanyahu intensely

Ironically, Western support for the toppling of Gaddafi in Libya has made it more difficult to persuade such regimes to abandon weapons of mass destruction.
Gaddafi made a dirty deal with London and Washington, to be allowed to sustain his dictatorship in return for abandoning his nuclear programme. Last year, the West reneged on this. Other tyrannies got the message; only a bomb can buy security from foreign meddling.

Wreck

The world would be a safer place if Iran’s nuclear facilities disappeared beneath a heap of rubble. The problem is it is almost certainly impossible to achieve with limited air strikes and conventional weapons. In 1981, the Israeli air force was able to wreck Iraq’s nuclear plants, and in 2007 those of Syria, with the world’s tacit approval. But today Iran’s most important sites are deep underground, protected by some of the strongest concrete in the world, specially developed by Iranian scientists. Israel’s two-ton GBU28 laser-guided bombs could devastate surface sites, but it is most unlikely they could destroy the key facility, inside a mountain at Fordo, near Qom. The chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, dismisses the notion of a strike by the Israelis as imprudent, saying that it would be ‘destabilising, and would not achieve their long-term objectives’.


article-0-0EB8F96D00000578-369_634x373.jpg


Dangerous: There is no denying that the world would be a much safer place if Iran's nuclear facilities were to disappear

I know no one in the military loop on either side of the Atlantic who believes that a bombing operation can achieve decisive results, though it would be certain to unleash a hideous international crisis.

Few of us doubt that Iran is a rogue state led by dangerous fanatics... the world would be a safer place if Iran’s nuclear facilities disappeared beneath a heap of rubble

So why is Israel still contemplating this step? Its prime minister is one of the most ruthless and intransigent politicians his country has produced since 1948. Netanyahu regards Arabs with contempt, and many years ago in my hearing expressed the hope that, in a future war, every Palestinian could be driven from the West Bank. He has repeatedly defied the pleas of President Obama to abandon illegal settlement building and is implacably hostile to Palestinian claims and aspirations. He brushes aside warnings from Western friends of Israel that his policies have crippled the moral standing of his country: Israel is progressively becoming a pariah.

But I suggested in these pages soon after Obama assumed office that his efforts to induce Netanyahu to moderate his behaviour would fail, because the Israelis would outflank the President by enlisting the support of a sympathetic Congress. So it has turned out. The White House has repeatedly warned Jerusalem about its excesses — then had to back off. Most Americans are instinctively sympathetic to Israel, and since the 9/11 attacks on their country by Muslims have become doubly so. They see their enemy’s enemy as their friend. They care little or nothing about the plight of the Palestinians, nor about Israeli expansionism on other people’s property.


article-0-083658D7000005DC-203_634x382.jpg


Risk: I am yet to find someone who believes that bombing Iran will achieve decisive results, and it would be sure to unleash an extremely dangerous international crisis

To put the matter bluntly, they see Israelis as clever, successful and culturally sympathetic, while Muslims can seem to them none of those things. Netanyahu started life as a marketing man, and has remained at heart just that. He knows exactly which levers to pull to win American public and political support. If he launches an attack on Iran’s nuclear sites, he knows that many Americans will applaud — at first, at least. No U.S. president would dare leave Israel hanging out to dry in the long and messy struggle that would follow. Even if Netanyahu acted without American consent, the Iranians would retaliate against U.S. interests and property — probably against European assets also.

Israel’s prime minister sees a prospect of dragging the U.S. into a violent confrontation, in which the White House would have no political choice save to side with Israel, right or wrong. Once shooting, or rather bombing, started, it would be hard for Obama to resist demands from his own electorate to send American planes to try to finish the job. If the Iranians lay mines in the Strait of Hormuz and attack passing tankers, the West would have to fight back, entering a long and dark tunnel. Depressing, is it not?

My old friend Professor Sir Michael Howard, now 89 years old but still the repository of greater wisdom than any other British strategic thinker, said to me a while back: ‘The only thing worse than the prospect of an Iran with nuclear weapons would be the consequences of using force to stop them.’ This still seems a statesmanlike assessment. We have learned to live with a world in which the Pakistanis, Indians and North Koreans have nuclear weapons — and, of course, the Israelis. However reckless the fanatics in Tehran, it is hard to imagine them launching an unprovoked nuclear assault on Israel, amid the certainty of annihilatory retaliation.


article-0-120AE2D6000005DC-642_634x382.jpg


Hard approach: President Obama's message to Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in Washington this week quite clearly should have been 'If you commit this reckless act, you will be on your own'

Destroy

Yet Israel may yet conclude that it should make the attempt to destroy Iran’s nuclear capability. In recent years, the country has become increasingly inward-looking, in response to global criticism of its treatment of the Palestinians. Even the most informed and sophisticated Israelis become ever less interested in what the rest of the world thinks of them. A friend who is in constant email contact with Israeli policy-makers and academics said sadly the other day: ‘They reject the logical arguments against bombing Iran because they see only the logic of the threat to themselves.’

To a tragic degree, the U.S. has become Israel’s prisoner. Those Americans who enthuse about the relationship fail to notice the heavy price the West pays, diminishing its global moral authority, for indulging repression of the Palestinians. If Israel does bomb Iran, I hope David Cameron will display the courage decisively to distance Britain from such action, whatever embarrassment such a stance causes with Washington.

It will be a bad day for peace if Iran acquires nuclear weapons. But it will be a worse one if Israel or the United States bomb to stop them — and fail.
 
Last edited:
If you read the article it says that Obama has to go along with it for now, he may need the votes from the Big Bagel.

I don't think there is a question that he has to pander for these votes but do you think the rest of the world just assumes he pandering and doesn't take what he's saying seriously?
 
I am not necessarly against bombing Iran, if its the last resort to stopping them from getting the bomb, but can you imagine the shit storm it would put president Obama in. The Republicans would likley start impeachment hearings.
 
I am not necessarly against bombing Iran, if its the last resort to stopping them from getting the bomb, but can you imagine the shit storm it would put president Obama in. The Republicans would likley start impeachment hearings.

So the Republican candidates (except for Ron Paul) all seem to want to bomb Iran (or have stated they would be willing to do so) but if Obama does they will try to impeach him?

Yes, I think that is exactly how it would play out Jarod. You have nailed it once again.
 
I don't think there is a question that he has to pander for these votes but do you think the rest of the world just assumes he pandering and doesn't take what he's saying seriously?

It is Netanyahu driving the issue not Obama, I only thank God that a Bible basher like Sanatorium has little chance of getting his hands on the reins of power. Yes, Obama should tell him to fuck off and no doubt he will after November but he has to be reelected first.
 
look, we really need a good bombing. We haven't had a nice news cycle of destruction for a while. I really want to see some shit blow up. KABOOOOOOM
 
It is Netanyahu driving the issue not Obama, I only thank God that a Bible basher like Sanatorium has little chance of getting his hands on the reins of power. Yes, Obama should tell him to fuck off and no doubt he will after November but he has to be reelected first.

No doubt he will? Really?

I completely disagree. Obama is legitimately bellicose and his increased drone bombings prove this. He's not just saying this stuff for the campaign - he 100% plans on bombing Iran himself to keep them from developing nuclear weapons. Unless Israel acts first.

one thing is for sure - Iran is getting bombed. So get ready for 5 dollar gas - or higher. Can you afford that? Can the war mongers specifically (not you Tom) afford that?

I hope you have to pay at the pump till you choke. I really do. I will laugh and laugh about it.
 
look, we really need a good bombing. We haven't had a nice news cycle of destruction for a while. I really want to see some shit blow up. KABOOOOOOM

I don't know if you are being facetious, but it doesn't matter. Whether it's all reality tv to you or not, it is to many, probably a majority of Americans. This phenomenon first presented during the Gulf War.

It's today's version of public lynchings. Americans love to watch people die. Now they get it televised and from afar and can even add popcorn. It's perfect.
 
Yup, can't let Iran get nukes. Look at all the wars the Soviets started with them.

we actually did fight a few wars?

Also we almost died a few times? (cuban missile crisis etc)

Certainly it would have been better had they not had them.

Also when push came to shove, the soviets were more rational. Remember, it was a godless country, they didn't think they could just explode everyone and go to heaven.
 
So the Republican candidates (except for Ron Paul) all seem to want to bomb Iran (or have stated they would be willing to do so) but if Obama does they will try to impeach him?

Yes, I think that is exactly how it would play out Jarod. You have nailed it once again.

They would be all mad about how he went about doing it, Trump the Chump is already talking about it.
 
So the Republican candidates (except for Ron Paul) all seem to want to bomb Iran (or have stated they would be willing to do so) but if Obama does they will try to impeach him?

Yes, I think that is exactly how it would play out Jarod. You have nailed it once again.
Unfortunately, I think he has. It wouldn't surprize me if they did just exactly that.
 
Back
Top