Israel and U.S. generals draw up theoretical scenario for attack on Iran


unclesamdrowning

Article co-written by retired generals James Cartwright and Amos Yadlin states that it would be preferable for the U.S., rather than Israel, to carry out an attack on Iran.

Haaretz

A theoretical scenario for a military assault on nuclear sites in Iran by the end of this year was published on Wednesday by two former senior officers from Israel and the United States. The officers state that the international community must first exhaust non-military efforts to pressure Iran and conclude that, if an attack is necessary, it is preferable to come from America rather than Israel.

“Given the spectrum of other available options, military force should only be employed against the program as a last resort,” write retired four-star American general James Cartwright, recently the deputy chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Maj. Gen. (res.) Amos Yadlin, former head of the Israel Defense Forces Military Intelligence and Israel Air Force chief of staff. “Yet the military option must still be credible, and ready to use if necessary. This case study is intended solely to stimulate and inform further discussion on the potential repercussions of different strike options.”

The case study was published simultaneously on the website of the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University, of which Yadlin is the director, and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

The report lays out the following hypothetical scenario: “The prime minister of Israel has just received a phone call from the White House relaying the findings of a recent U.S. intelligence assessment: international sanctions and negotiations with Iran have yet to persuade the regime to halt its nuclear drive. Tehran previously rejected a generous U.S. offer that would have allowed it to enrich uranium in exchange for strong nuclear safeguards, and the program continues to advance unabated. After agreeing to convene in Washing¬ton in one week to discuss strategy going forward, the prime minister and president each call a meeting with their national security advisers.

“The [American] president’s team acknowledges that the United States is war weary, debt laden, and politically gridlocked. With U.S. forces having just withdrawn from Iraq and on a path to end combat operations in Afghanistan by late 2014, many hope that the attendant diversion of resources will spring the country from its financial woes and accelerate its economic recovery.

“Nevertheless, the president, the prime minister, and their advisers reaffirm that a nuclear Iran is an unacceptable threat to U.S. and Israeli national security, with the president reiterating his strong and repeated 2012 commitment to prevention. Each leader then reviews the red lines that the regime has already crossed since 2004 regarding enrichment of nuclear material, as well as the UN Security Council resolutions it has violated in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. They also consider the fact that five rounds of diplomatic negotiations (in Geneva, Istanbul, Baghdad, Moscow, and Kazakhstan) have failed.

“In light of these concerns, both leaders agree that the time has come to ready their contingency options for a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. But if such action does indeed become necessary, they ask, which country should launch the attack—the United States or Israel?”

According to Cartwright and Yadlin, “The U.S. military’s superior capabilities- including B-2 stealth bombers, air refueling craft, advanced drones, and 30,000-pound massive ordnance penetrators – are more likely to severely damage Iranian targets. Yet the United States has no operational experience in strikes against such facilities, unlike Israel, which successfully conducted similar opera¬tions against the Osiraq nuclear reactor near Baghdad in 1981 and, according to foreign reports, against a Syrian reactor in 2007.”

They add that any Israeli action would require its planes to cross the airspace of at least one other country (Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq or Syria). In contrast, an American attack could be conducted directly from American military bases or from American aircraft carriers stationed in the Persian Gulf or elsewhere.

In the event that the countries pursue military action, Cartwright and Yadlin recommend an American surgical strike on Iranian nuclear sites, but not a full aerial campaign against Iran’s entire military forces. The two also object to a broad approach with ground forces because, they reason, a limited attack will enable Iran to respond in a limited manner and not drag the entire region into war.

According to Cartwright and Yadlin, an Israeli attack on Iran would provoke greater criticism from the Arab world than an American attack, but they also think that the strength of an expected Arab reaction should not be exaggerated. They acknowledge that Sunni public opinion is far from supportive of Iran because of the latter’s support of the Assad regime in the murderous Syrian civil war.

The authors do present a few reasons in favor of an Israeli attack. They point out that Israel’s moral basis for bombing Iran’s nuclear sites, as the country directly threatened with destruction, is stronger than America’s. They also mention that the United States is not interested in another war with an Islamic country after its wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

  1. #1 by Jean on May 29, 2013 - 4:22 pm

    The pentagon is under the complete control of the international Banking cartel and have no qualms
    about spending the lives of anyone they can lure into uniform. They would be classed as traitors in
    earlier years and be subject to the same justice as the spies of world war 2. The lies they have
    been able to get away with such as the 9/11 fake Plane crash into the pentagon, the Gulf of Tonkin
    lie, and endless others is proof enough they are not on the side of the American people or Humanity as a whole. Its just as General Smedley Butler said, War is a racket.

  2. #2 by Cranford Ducain on May 29, 2013 - 7:04 pm

    It is my fervent prayer that the “God of Israel” brings down his full fury on those who continue to fill this world with violence and bloodshed at the behest of those in power in Israel. I call upon him to totally destroy the leaders in the land of Israel. I call upon him to leave the land so vile and putrid, no one can so much a pass through it ever again and forever. Let it be burned into the memory of all future mankind what happend there and why such judgement was placed upon them.

  3. #3 by michael mazur on May 30, 2013 - 1:49 am

    ~Tehran previously rejected a generous U.S. offer that would have allowed it to enrich uranium in exchange for strong nuclear safeguards~

    What ? The US had not made any such offers.

    ~an Israeli attack on Iran would provoke greater criticism from the Arab world than an American attack, but they also think that the strength of an expected Arab reaction should not be exaggerated.~

    Internally contradictory.

    ~the president, the prime minister, and their advisers reaffirm that a nuclear Iran is an unacceptable threat to U.S. and Israeli national security,~

    There is no threat from Iran, like there was no threat from Iraq, on the same accusation set.

    ~a limited attack will enable Iran to respond in a limited manner and not drag the entire region into war.~

    Why would Iran respond in a limited manner, as they have already said that their response will not be limited ?

    ***
    Haaretz clearly are warmongers. Instead, would Haaretz write on how many of Israel’s nukes are dispersed strategically on continental United States and Europe, for it is on those two continents that Holocaust worship is obligatory, as cowed populations dare not speak to what is before their eyes ?

  4. #4 by Benjamin Freedman on May 30, 2013 - 4:33 pm

    “Beer.” check. “Basketball playoffs.” check. “Five minutes of news each night hearing that Iran and Muslims are evil.” check.

  5. #5 by Ben on May 30, 2013 - 4:38 pm

    NO! We, dob ‘t want any more war! NO WAR!

    Let Israel go it alone! They’ve provoked and attacked others, all their neighbors, so let the jews take the consequences.

  6. #6 by Roberto on May 30, 2013 - 4:50 pm

    “Israel and U.S. generals draw up theoretical scenario for attack on Iran”

    I think you’ll find that was a ‘theocratical scenario’

  7. #7 by annebeck58 on May 30, 2013 - 11:29 pm

    I don’t think the American general has any sense if he actually believes anyone, at this point, is a threat or acting as a threat to the USA. The only way we will see a threat is IF we go along with the Israeli general and make ourselves a threat to the rest of the world (or any part of the world.)
    It seems to me that, though these generals may be good at making war, they are worthless when it comes to making peace. Nobody, at this point, wants to attack America. Though we’ve given plenty of nations cause to want us/USA attacked, nobody has the power or the impetus. We can change this by helping out Isra-Hell. But we really do need to start caring about peace and stop worrying about others’ wars (especially those plotted by Isra-HELL).

  8. #8 by tony on May 31, 2013 - 11:09 pm

    bloody loonies, all of you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,607 other followers

%d bloggers like this: