373 Ko Iran Strikes
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View 373 Ko Iran Strikes as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 6,787
- Pages: 17
DDI KO
Iran Strikes Iran Strikes...................................................................................................................................................................................................1 Israel strikes Iran..........................................................................................................................................................................................2 Israel Strikes Iran.........................................................................................................................................................................................3 No strikes – US & Israel..............................................................................................................................................................................4 Obama Strikes..............................................................................................................................................................................................5 Israel Strike !................................................................................................................................................................................................6 Iran Nuclearization now...............................................................................................................................................................................7 US strikes solve Israeli Strikes....................................................................................................................................................................8 Iran not a threat............................................................................................................................................................................................9 No Strikes...................................................................................................................................................................................................10 No Strikes...................................................................................................................................................................................................11 Yes Strikes..................................................................................................................................................................................................12 AT: Bush Strikes Iran.................................................................................................................................................................................13 Bush Strikes Iran – “October Surprise”.....................................................................................................................................................14 Israeli Strike - Obama................................................................................................................................................................................15 Iran Strikes – Turns Oil..............................................................................................................................................................................16 Iran strikes terrorism.............................................................................................................................................................................17
1
DDI KO
Israel strikes Iran Iran strikes inevitable – Israel SMH, 7-31-08, Sydney morning herald, Peace hopes up in air as lame duck flies out, http://www.smh.com.au/news/general/peacehopes-up-in-air-as-lame-duck-flies-out/2008/07/31/1217097436375.html
Both Bush, dogged by his invasion of Iraq, and Olmert by his invasion of Lebanon, are finished as leaders. Abbas has been reduced to a weak, ineffectual leader of the Palestinians, propped up on one side with aid from the US and Europe and on the other by the Israeli military. Waiting noisily in the wings in the event of an early Israeli election is the hawkish former Likud PM Benjamin Netanyahu, whose opposition to any territorial concessions to the Palestinians has, according to opinion polls, positioned him to win a national poll - despite the relief with which he was seen off by voters in 1999. But the issue of what to do about Iran and its nuclear program is in a different category to the Palestinian and Syrian questions. It is one thing to be talking about peace 40 years after a conflict - the world has factored in its absence on both the Palestinian and the Syrian fronts. But it is quite another when influential figures in Washington and Jerusalem talk up the prospect of military strikes against Iran. In June, Olmert warned that the international community had a duty to clarify to Iran that the repercussions of its continued pursuit of nuclear weapons would be "devastating". That was followed by what sounded like a threat from Shaul Mofaz, one of Olmert's ministers who also is a candidate for the leadership, who warned that an Israeli strike on Iran was "unavoidable" because, in his view, sanctions and diplomacy had failed. A wild scenario being canvassed by some Israeli analysts calls for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities by Israeli or American aircraft in the window between the US presidential election and the inauguration of the winning candidate in January. With Bush and Olmert on the way out, it might be called the attack of the lame ducks.
Israel will strike Iran AFP, 7-30-08, Obama says Israel could strike Iran if sanctions fail: report, http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hSFLIDZBLLdXPlpUbrHbdCO00zGw White House hopeful Barack Obama has told fellow Democratic lawmakers that Israel will launch a military strike on Iran if nuclear sanctions fail, ABC News reported Wednesday. The comment was reportedly made in a meeting late Tuesday between Senator Obama and Democratic members of the House of Representatives, following the presidential contender's return from an overseas tour that included Israel. "Nobody said this to me directly but I get the feeling from my talks that if the sanctions don't work, Israel is going to strike Iran," an attendee at the meeting quoted Obama as saying, according to ABC. Neither the Obama campaign nor his Senate office had any immediate comment. Iran has been slapped with three sets of UN Security Council sanctions over its refusal to halt uranium enrichment, a process that makes nuclear fuel but also the core of an atomic bomb. Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Wednesday that his country would not retreat in the face of demands by world powers for Tehran to stop the enrichment. Obama also told Tuesday's meeting that Arab states understood that a nuclear Iran would be a "game changer" for the entire region because of likely Israeli action, another attendee cited by ABC said.
Israeli strike inevitable without US-Iran rapprochement Paul Rogers, Professor of Peace Studies at Bradford University, 7-28-08, Iran, Israel, and the risk of war, http://www.australia.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=265:israel-is-intent-on-a-military-option&catid=41:rotatornews Between this hope and a stony reality, however, falls a shadow. For even if the momentum in Washington has moved away from the planning for a military strike against Tehran's nuclear facilities, the option of an attack by Israel is very much alive. In the complex strategic calculations of the three main state actors, therefore, the mild and provisional rapprochement between the US and Iran is only one counter that in itself does not eliminate the possibility of war (see "Israel, the United States and Iran: the tipping-point", 13 March 2008).
2
DDI KO
Israel Strikes Iran Israeli strikes are inevitable – candidates, diplomacy, and sanctions won’t solve JOHN R. BOLTON, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, 7-15, 2008; Wall Street Journal, Page A19, Opinion, Israel, Iran, and the Bomb, http://www.wsj.com/article/SB121607841801452581.html Iran's test salvo of ballistic missiles last week together with recent threatening rhetoric by commanders of the Islamic Republic's Revolutionary Guards emphasizes how close the Middle East is to a fundamental, in fact an irreversible, turning point. Tehran's efforts to intimidate the United States and Israel from using military force against its nuclear program, combined with yet another diplomatic charm offensive with the Europeans, are two sides of the same policy coin. The regime is buying the short additional period of time it needs to produce deliverable nuclear weapons, the strategic objective it has been pursuing clandestinely for 20 years. Between Iran and its long-sought objective, however, a shadow may fall: targeted military action, either Israeli or American. Yes, Iran cannot deliver a nuclear weapon on target today, and perhaps not for several years. Estimates vary widely, and no one knows for sure when it will have a deliverable weapon except the mullahs, and they're not telling. But that is not the key date. Rather, the crucial turning point is when Iran masters all the capabilities to weaponize without further external possibility of stopping it. Then the decision to weaponize, and its timing, is Tehran's alone. We do not know if Iran is at this point, or very near to it. All we do know is that, after five years of failed diplomacy by the EU-3 (Britain, France and Germany), Iran is simply five years closer to nuclear weapons. And yet, true to form, State Department comments to Congress last week – even as Iran's missiles were ascending – downplayed Iran's nuclear progress, ignoring the cost of failed diplomacy. But the confident assumption that we have years to deal with the problem is high-stakes gambling on a policy that cannot be reversed if it fails. If Iran reaches weaponization before State's jaunty prediction, the Middle East, and indeed global, balance of power changes in potentially catastrophic ways. And consider what comes next for the U.S.: the Bush
administration's last six months pursuing its limp diplomatic efforts, plus six months of a new president getting his national security team and policies together. In other words, one more year for Tehran to proceed unhindered to "the point of no return." We have almost certainly lost the race between giving "strong incentives" for Iran to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and its scientific and technological efforts to do just that. Swift, sweeping, effectively enforced sanctions might have made a difference five years ago. No longer. Existing sanctions have doubtless caused some pain, but Iran's real economic woes stem from nearly 30 years of mismanagement by the Islamic Revolution. More sanctions today (even assuming, heroically, support from Russia and China) will simply be too little, too late. While regime change in Tehran would be the preferable solution, there is almost no possibility of dislodging the mullahs in time. Had we done more in the past five years to support the discontented – the young, the non-Persian minorities and the economically disaffected – things might be different. Regime change, however, cannot be turned on and off like a light switch, although the difficulty of effecting it is no excuse not to do more now. That is why Israel is now at an urgent decision point: whether to use targeted military force to break Iran's indigenous control over the nuclear fuel cycle at one or more critical points. If successful, such highly risky and deeply unattractive air strikes or sabotage will not resolve the Iranian nuclear crisis. But they have the potential to buy considerable time, thereby putting that critical asset back on our side of the ledger rather than on Iran's. With whatever time is bought, we may be able to effect regime change in Tehran, or at least get the process underway. The alternative is Iran with nuclear weapons, the most deeply unattractive alternative of all. But the urgency of the situation has not impressed Barack Obama or the EU-3. Remarkably, on July 9, Sen. Obama, as if stumbling on a new idea, said Iran "must suffer threats of economic sanctions" and that we needed "direct diplomacy . . . so we avoid provocation" and "give strong incentives . . . to change their behavior." Javier Solana, chief EU negotiator, was at the time busy fixing a meeting with the Iranians to continue five years of doing exactly what Mr. Obama was proclaiming, without results. John McCain responded to Iran's missile salvo by stressing again the need for a workable missile defense system to defend the U.S. against attacks by rogue states like Iran and North Korea. He is undoubtedly correct, highlighting yet another reason why November's election is so critical, given the unceasing complaints about missile defense from most Democrats.
3
DDI KO
No strikes – US & Israel US and Israel won’t strike Iran now – next president is key The Jerusalem Post, 7-7-08, 'Iran leaks reflect conflict in US administration' http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1215330878502&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
One Israeli diplomatic official said that as the debate rages in Washington, it was clear that Israel would be unable to take military action without a green light from the US. "Everyone understands that we could not take action without US approval," the official said, "both because we would need to fly through airspace controlled by the US, and we would need their help in dealing with repercussions from any attack." The most direct air route to Iran is through Iraqi airspace, which is controlled by the US. "We would need their help in carrying out the attack, and also afterward," the official said. "We would have to deal with possible military action from Hizbullah and Syria, and also diplomatic fallout. Don't expect the world to clap if we attack Iran, and as a result oil prices spiral from $140 a barrel to $300 a barrel." The official said Israel would need US diplomatic cover to deal with the world's condemnation, and possibly even sanctions, in the aftermath of a raid. Although Israeli officials said they were not surprised by the various different assessments coming out of Washington, because they have long been aware of the internal divisions on this matter, they said they were slightly surprised by remarks made by Mullen about the "third front" because he had not issued these warnings in his meetings with top Israeli military brass during his visit to Tel Aviv last week. At a press conference in Washington last week, Mullen said that "Opening up a third front right now would be extremely stressful on us," adding that while he believed Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons the efforts needed to focus on diplomatic, financial and economic actions. The Israeli officials said that the talks with Mullen had focused primarily on Iran but had also dealt with other regional issues such as Hamas's military buildup in Gaza and Hizbullah's in Lebanon. They added, however, that the
concern voiced by Mullen was real and reflected fears in Washington that a strike against Iran would destabilize the region and undermine America's recent success in Iraq. Meanwhile, Anthony H. Cordesman, an American national security analyst who served as a former national security assistant to presumptive Republic Party presidential nominee John McCain said Sunday that the US is trying to pursue the diplomatic option with Iran over its nuclear program since it does not view the nuclear threat by the Islamic Republic as an "urgent" crisis. "I think we are contemplating to do exactly what we said we are doing - which is to try to pursue diplomatic options, and the reasons are very simple: We do not see this as an urgent crisis in terms of Iran rapidly acquiring weapons or effective delivery systems," said Cordesman in an address at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Cordesman, who also served as a former director of intelligence assessment in the Office of the US Secretary of Defense, conceded that the US assessment on Iran's nuclear program is at odds with Israeli intelligence estimates, and said that the whole issue is likely to be left to the next US President. "If that assessment changes, it does differ from some Israeli experts, then our timing might change. But I suspect that is going to be an issue for President Obama or President McCain," he said. "In terms of US strikes on Iran, we have a contingency plan for virtually anything. And in this case, are we going to constantly have the ability to execute some kind of strike plan against Iran's missiles and weapons of mass destruction, including its nuclear facilities? Yes. Are we about to execute it? No! The president of the United States has said that, the secretary of defense, the secretary of state [and] the chairman of Joint Chiefs."
4
DDI KO
Obama Strikes Obama will attack Iran Walter Russell Mead, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, 7-28-08, LA Times, Obama the irony man, http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-mead27-2008jul27,0,7118072.story
In Israel, Obama went to great pains to tell anxious Israelis that his commitment to Israel's security is "unshakable" and that Tel Aviv would have no stronger or more reliable ally than an Obama administration. Like President Bush, Obama has promised Israel that he would never ask it to make concessions that endanger its security. Obama also appears to have cleared up the ambiguity in his stance on Iran. The world community, he told the Israelis, "must prevent" the mullahs from getting a nuclear bomb. Presumably, that means if negotiations fail to stop Iran from enriching uranium, and sanctions don't do the trick either, the world community will have to explore other options. Obama's pilgrimage abroad points to a larger truth: In the midst of a bitter political year, a loose bipartisan consensus on the Mideast may be emerging. And, irony of ironies, the consensus, seemingly embraced by Obama, seems closer to Bush's views than to those of antiwar activists who propelled the Illinois senator to the nomination.
the
Obama will strike Iran Dan Kovalik, a human and labor rights lawyer living in Pittsburgh, graduate of Columbia Law School, 7-29-08, Obama Must Take Stand Against Attack on Iran, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-kovalik/obama-must-take-stand-aga_b_115585.html Instead, what we have right now is a candidate in Obama who refuses to lead on this critical issue of war and peace. Thus, Senator Obama publicly told Iran that it should abide by the Bush Administration's arbitrary deadline (which runs out a week from now) to agree to suspend its nuclear enrichment program or suffer unspecified sanctions, possibly even a military assault. Senator Obama himself now says that no option (which would include a military one) is off the table. Then, when interviewed in the Jerusalem Post about whether he would support an Israeli strike against Iran, he stated simply "that Israelis, and Israelis alone have to make decisions about their own security." In addition, Senator Obama pronounced during his trip to the Middle East and in his Berlin speech that preventing a nuclear Iran is one of the top priorities of the world today, thus giving encouragement to those in the U.S. and Israel who are considering a military strike as we speak. The truth is that the premise of such a claim is simply false. First, the fact that Israel has 150 nuclear weapons, though it refuses to admit as much, means that Iran (which currently has none) does not pose a real military threat to Israel in any case, for any strike by Iran would mean certain annihilation for that country. In addition, we have the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate which concluded that Iran, as it is now claiming, abandoned its nuclear weapons program back in 2003. It must also be noted, lest we forget, that Iran had actually offered back in 2003 to engage in constructive discussions with the U.S. over "its disputed nuclear program, support for militant groups that the United States labels terrorists and the acceptance of Israel," and it offered "active Iranian support for Iraqi stabilization." This overture, as we all know, was ignored by the U.S. State Department. In addition, it is worth recalling that, back in October of 2001, Iran actually provided critical assistance to the U.S.'s military efforts against the Taliban in Afghanistan - an effort which Senator Obama has made clear he supports. In short, Iran is not the threat which Bush, McCain, and yes, even Obama through his rhetoric, are leading us to believe. Indeed, all of the histrionics over Iran are eerily reminiscent of those which led us into the war against Iraq. However, Senator Obama, in a reversal of his brave stance back in 2002 against the Iraq war - a stance which he trumpeted as one of the prime reasons to vote for him for the Democratic nomination - is now enabling another ill-conceived and possibly much more destructive, war to go forward.
5
DDI KO
Israel Strike ! Israeli strike on Iran causes nuclear war Benny Morris, a professor of Middle Eastern history at Ben-Gurion University, 7-18-08, Using Bombs to Stave Off War, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/opinion/18morris.html
ISRAEL will almost surely attack Iran’s nuclear sites in the next four to seven months — and the leaders in Washington and even Tehran should hope that the attack will be successful enough to cause at least a significant delay in the Iranian production schedule, if not complete destruction, of that country’s nuclear program. Because if the attack fails, the Middle East will almost certainly face a nuclear war — either through a subsequent pre-emptive Israeli nuclear strike or a nuclear exchange shortly after Iran gets the bomb. It is in the interest of neither Iran nor the United States (nor, for that matter, the rest of the world) that Iran be savaged by a nuclear strike, or that both Israel and Iran suffer such a fate. We know what would ensue: a traumatic destabilization of the Middle East with resounding political and military consequences around the globe, serious injury to the West’s oil supply and radioactive pollution of the earth’s atmosphere and water. Israel-Iran war escalates to a nuclear holocaust Benny Morris, a professor of Middle Eastern history at Ben-Gurion University, 7-18-08, Using Bombs to Stave Off War, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/opinion/18morris.html But the
more likely result is that the international community will continue to do nothing effective and that Iran will speed up its efforts to produce the bomb that can destroy Israel. The Iranians will also likely retaliate by attacking Israel’s cities with ballistic missiles (possibly topped with chemical or biological warheads); by prodding its local clients, Hezbollah and Hamas, to unleash their own armories against Israel; and by activating international Muslim terrorist networks against Israeli and Jewish — and possibly American — targets worldwide (though the Iranians may at the last moment be wary of provoking American military involvement). Such a situation would confront Israeli leaders with two agonizing, dismal choices. One is to allow the Iranians to acquire the bomb and hope for the best — meaning a nuclear standoff, with the prospect of mutual assured destruction preventing the Iranians from actually using the weapon. The other would be to use the Iranian counterstrikes as an excuse to escalate and use the only means available that will actually destroy the Iranian nuclear project: Israel’s own nuclear arsenal. Given the fundamentalist, self-sacrificial mindset of the mullahs who run Iran, Israel knows that deterrence may not work as well as it did with the comparatively rational men who ran the Kremlin and White House during the cold war. They are likely to use any bomb they build, both because of ideology and because of fear of Israeli nuclear pre-emption. Thus an Israeli nuclear strike to prevent the Iranians from taking the final steps toward getting the bomb is probable. The alternative is letting Tehran have its bomb. In either case, a Middle Eastern nuclear holocaust would be in the cards.
6
DDI KO
Iran Nuclearization now Status quo won’t solve Iran nuclearization Benny Morris, a professor of Middle Eastern history at Ben-Gurion University, 7-18-08, Using Bombs to Stave Off War, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/opinion/18morris.html But should Israel’s conventional assault fail to significantly harm or stall the Iranian program, a ratcheting up of the Iranian-Israeli conflict to a nuclear level will most likely follow. Every intelligence agency in the world believes the Iranian program is geared toward making weapons, not to the peaceful applications of nuclear power. And, despite the current talk of additional economic sanctions, everyone knows that such measures have so far led nowhere and are unlikely to be applied with sufficient scope to cause Iran real pain, given Russia’s and China’s continued recalcitrance and Western Europe’s (and America’s) ambivalence in behavior, if not in rhetoric. Western intelligence agencies agree that
Iran will reach the “point of no return” in acquiring the capacity to produce nuclear weapons in one to four years.
7
DDI KO
US strikes solve Israeli Strikes US strikes solve Israeli strikes Benny Morris, a professor of Middle Eastern history at Ben-Gurion University, 7-18-08, Using Bombs to Stave Off War, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/opinion/18morris.html Which leaves the world with only one option if it wishes to halt Iran’s march toward nuclear weaponry: the military option, meaning an aerial assault by either the United States or Israel. Clearly, America has the conventional military capacity to do the job, which would involve a protracted air assault against Iran’s air defenses followed by strikes on the nuclear sites themselves. But, as a result of the Iraq imbroglio, and what is rapidly turning into the Afghan imbroglio, the American public has little enthusiasm for wars in the Islamic lands. This curtails the White House’s ability to begin yet another major military campaign in pursuit of a goal that is not seen as a vital national interest by many Americans. Which leaves only Israel — the country threatened almost daily with destruction by Iran’s leaders. Thus the recent reports about Israeli plans and preparations to attack Iran (the period from Nov. 5 to Jan. 19 seems the best bet, as it gives the West half a year to try the diplomatic route but ensures that Israel will have support from a lame-duck White House). The problem is that Israel’s military capacities are far smaller than America’s and, given the distances involved, the fact that the Iranian sites are widely dispersed and underground, and Israel’s inadequate intelligence, it is unlikely that the Israeli conventional forces, even if allowed the use of Jordanian and Iraqi airspace (and perhaps, pending American approval, even Iraqi air strips) can destroy or perhaps significantly delay the Iranian nuclear project. Nonetheless, Israel, believing that its very existence is at stake — and this is a feeling shared by most Israelis across the political spectrum — will certainly make the effort. Israel’s leaders, from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert down, have all explicitly stated that an Iranian bomb means Israel’s destruction; Iran will not be allowed to get the bomb.
8
DDI KO
Iran not a threat Iran’s not a threat Dan Kovalik, a human and labor rights lawyer living in Pittsburgh, graduate of Columbia Law School, 7-29-08, Obama Must Take Stand Against Attack on Iran, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-kovalik/obama-must-take-stand-aga_b_115585.html
First, the fact that Israel has 150 nuclear weapons, though it refuses to admit as much, means that Iran (which currently has none) does not pose a real military threat to Israel in any case, for any strike by Iran would mean certain annihilation for that country. In addition, we have the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate which concluded that Iran, as it is now claiming, abandoned its nuclear weapons program back in 2003. It must also be noted, lest we forget, that Iran had actually offered back in 2003 to engage in constructive discussions with the U.S. over "its disputed nuclear program, support for militant groups that the United States labels terrorists and the acceptance of Israel," and it offered "active Iranian support for Iraqi stabilization." This overture, as we all know, was ignored by the U.S. State Department. In addition, it is worth recalling that, back in October of 2001, Iran actually provided critical assistance to the U.S.'s military efforts against the Taliban in Afghanistan - an effort which Senator Obama has made clear he supports.
9
DDI KO
No Strikes No strikes now – moving toward peace talks Harry Sterling, former diplomat, 7-30-08, Embassy, Bush Playing with Nuclear Fire on Iran, http://www.embassymag.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=/2008/july/30/sterling/
Until a few days ago, some feared increasing tension between Iran, Israel and the United States had reached the point where actual hostilities were conceivable. Israel, as well as the U.S., had been signalling that military action against Iran's nuclear facilities could be an option if Tehran didn't agree to end its nuclear enrichment program, which they believed is based on an Iranian intention to develop a nuclear weapons capability. Several Israeli parliamentarians have called for their government to move against Iran before it's too late. To up the pressure on Iran, Israeli authorities made sure that long-range exercises by Israel's airforce—involving flights capable of reaching Iranian nuclear sites—were clearly publicized for the benefit of the Iranians. In recent days, rumours had circulated that Israeli fighter aircraft have been spotted at American-controlled airbases in Iraq, their presence supposedly a warning Israeli forces could attack Iranian facilities much easier than thought. (However, Iraq's President Nouri alMaliki insists Iraq will not permit its territory to be used for attacks against neighbouring states.) In response to such veiled threats, the Iranians went on their own offensive, carrying out two separate missile launches, one involving the Shahab-3 missile with a 2,000 kilometre range, easily capable of striking targets within Israel and beyond. A representative of Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said Tehran would hit both Israel and 32 U.S. bases in the Persian Gulf if Iran were attacked. But then, in a sudden reversal of the previous bellicose rhetoric, both the Iranians and Americans abruptly toned down their mutual sabrerattling, suggesting they were interested in entering a dialogue with each other. In an atypical conciliatory approach, representatives of Ayatollah Khamenei indicated Tehran was prepared to discuss the most recent compromise proposals tabled by European Union representatives (backed by the U.S.). And then, in a complete about-face from its previous, uncompromising insistence that Washington wouldn't participate in talks with Iran unless Tehran first suspended its nuclear enrichment program, the Bush administration announced it was sending Undersecretary of State William Burns to Geneva to join talks last weekend between the EU and Iranian negotiators. Washington also indicated it might establish a U.S. interests mission in Tehran, the first since the 1979 Iranian Revolution—a move Iranian President Ahmadinejad uncharacteristically warmly welcomed.
10
DDI KO
No Strikes US won’t strike Iran Paul Rogers, Professor of Peace Studies at Bradford University, 7-28-08, Iran, Israel, and the risk of war, http://www.australia.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=265:israel-is-intent-on-a-military-option&catid=41:rotatornews
The shift in Washington's approach to Iran seems to have been the result of pressure from two branches of government: the state department, where influential policy-makers have sought to revive a diplomatic path over Iran; and the defence department, where there has been real concern over the possible consequences of a military confrontation. This has been voiced by a number of senior military commanders, most recently Admiral Mike Mullen, chair of the joint chiefs-of-staff (see "Top US admiral says strike on Iran means turmoil", Reuters, 20 July 2008). Mullen has conveyed a pithy scepticism about the fallout of war with Iran ("This is a very unstable part of the world and I don't need it to be more unstable") with a sharp awareness of the limits imposed by the US's own military overstretch ("Right now I'm fighting two wars and I don't need a third one"). At the same time, he is emphatic that Iran has to be "deterred" in its ostensible ambition of achieving a nuclear-weapon capacity (see "U.S. admiral calls for global pressure on Iran", Xinhua, 21 July 2008)
11
DDI KO
Yes Strikes Bush will strike Iran while in office PressTV, 7-29-08, Israeli says Iran war not imminent, http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=65061§ionid=351020101 According to Jerusalem Post, the unnamed official involved in Tel Aviv-Washington talks referred to the ongoing strategic talks concerning Iran and said, "We are still far away from the point where military officers are poring over maps together planning an operation." However, some Israeli officials see the move by the US to send its number three diplomat William Burns to the Geneva nuclear talks with Iran as an effort to garner international support in the event President George W. Bush decides to attack Iran during his last months in office. "This way they will be able to say they tried everything," one Israeli official speculated. "This increases America's chances of gaining more public support domestically as well as the support of European nations which are today opposed to military action." Israel, the sole possessor of a nuclear arsenal in the Middle East, staged a large-scale military maneuver in early June in a move interpreted as muscle-flexing against Iran.
Although US officials claim they are committed to a diplomatic solution to Tehran's nuclear standoff, they refuse to rule out the use of military option against Iran should it continue uranium enrichment. Strikes now – election irrelevant Andrew Glass is a contributing editor at Politico. 7-31-08, Waiting for an October surprise, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/12185.html The media happily chew on the next two predictable events on the political calendar: the choice of running mates by John McCain and Barack Obama and the polling “bounce” the presidential nominees may harvest from their party’s national political convention. Beyond those compass points, we sail into uncharted waters. Will a presidential campaign seemingly headed for victory founder on the political rocks of this year’s October surprise? Merely raising that question presumes that there will be — to use the current parlance — such a game-changing event. While the historical record reflects pretty good odds that at least one October surprise will occur, the past cannot tell us what impact, if any, it would have on the November results. President Bush’s status as an unpopular lame duck makes it less likely that he would pull one off, at least one that could aid and abet the Republican cause. Thus, a Bush decision to order an airstrike against Iran’s nuclear sites could backfire with voters when — not if — the Democrats brand it as a political ploy. Woe to McCain should that notion stick at the polls. And on a purely political level, Bush knows, notwithstanding Obama’s assertions to the contrary, that McCain has no enduring
interest in preserving the Bush legacy. So this year’s top entry in the surprise sweepstakes is the prospect of Israel attacking Iran on its own — without seeking Bush’s permission. The Israelis might wait until after Election Day to launch such a salvo because, presumably, it would be easier for Bush to offer American support with the campaign out of the way. But what if Israeli intelligence determines that the Jewish state is in imminent danger from a pre-emptive blow?
12
DDI KO
AT: Bush Strikes Iran Bush is pushing for diplomacy with Iran Juan Cole, President of the Global Americana Institute, 7-31-08, Why Bush folded on Iran, http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/07/31/iran/ Pundits and diplomats nearly got whiplash from the double take they did when George W. Bush sent the No. 3 man in the State Department to sit at a table on July 19 across from an Iranian negotiator, without any preconditions. When Bush had addressed the Israeli Knesset in May, he made headlines by denouncing any negotiation with "terrorists and radicals" as "the false comfort of appeasement." What drove W. to undermine John McCain by suddenly adopting Barack Obama's foreign policy prescription on Iran? Back in mid-July, the Geneva talks were attended by representatives of the five veto-wielding nations on the United Nations Security Council, including the U.S., along with a delegate from Germany and chief European Union negotiator Javier Solana. E.U. parleys with Tehran have been going on for years, but the presence of undersecretary of state for political affairs William Burns signaled a new seriousness to Washington's commitment to the diplomatic track. What the U.S. and its European allies were offering Iran at the Geneva meeting was termed a "freeze for freeze" deal. Iran would not attempt to improve on its rudimentary ability to enrich uranium to low levels, or go beyond running 3,000 centrifuges, in return for a pause in the spiral of economic sanctions imposed on Iran by the U.N. Security Council. The blogosphere and Op-Ed pages were rife with speculation about the reason for Bush's startling reversal. Former National Security Council staffer and Columbia University Iran expert Gary Sick implied that Vice President Dick Cheney and the hawks had lost control of Iran policy to foreign policy realists such as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in a behind-the-scenes Oval Office rumble. His thesis was supported by the howls of outrage against Bush's "appeasement" of Iran published in the Wall Street Journal opinion pages by former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton and by the American Enterprise Institute's Michael Rubin, both prominently associated with the neoconservative movement and with propagandizing for the Iraq war. As usual, the neocon doth protest too much. Burns conducted no real negotiations with the Iranian delegation, simply restating Washington's insistence that Iran cease its enrichment activities. His presence at the negotiations was mainly symbolic. Still, on the symbolic level of politics, Washington's change of direction was momentous. Bush had clearly executed a "Rockford" or reverse 180 of the sort you see stunt drivers pull off in spy movies. And the reason for that reversal of course was, indeed, reality -- not just a recognition of the limits of the U.S. military, but a taste of $5-per-gallon gas. Bush and Cheney, both oilmen, invaded one oil-rich country and said its reconstruction would be paid for by a flood of cheap oil. Now, ironically, one of the main reasons they have had to scale back their ambitions for a second oil-rich country, Iran, is the crushing effect of expensive oil on the U.S. and world economy. It was just a year ago that war with Iran seemed imminent. Last August David Wurmser, a major neoconservative figure who had just left Cheney's staff revealed that the vice president was talking about having Israel hit Iran's nuclear research facilities. At the same time, Afghanistan expert Barnett Rubin went public with what he was told by a Bush administration insider -- that Cheney would make a big push for a strike on Iran in the fall of 2007. Journalist Seymour Hersh reported that Cheney was attempting to reconfigure the Iraq war as a struggle with Iran. And, indeed, Cheney did make threats against Iran at institutions of the Israel lobby such as the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. In December 2007, however, the intelligence community pushed back. Key findings from the
National Intelligence Estimate, released that month, showed that Iran had mothballed any weapons-related research since early 2003. The Cheney push for one more war was effectively blocked. In recent months, several major developments have strengthened the case for dealing with Iran diplomatically rather than militarily. The U.S. military is more overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan than ever. The resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the tribal areas of northwest Pakistan has required a significant increase in the number of U.S. and NATO troops during the past year. Iranian proxies in Iraq and Afghanistan could easily target U.S. bases with Katyusha rockets in retaliation for any U.S. strike on the nuclear research facilities at Natanz near Isfahan.
13
DDI KO
Bush Strikes Iran – “October Surprise” Bush will strike Iran before the elections to give McCain a boost William O. Beeman, professor and chair of the department of anthropology at the University of Minnesota, 7-21-08, Playing Games with Iran, Foreign Policy In Focus, http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5387
Hostile rhetoric against Iran also plays into the U.S. electoral process. For American politicians, Iran is a universal bogeyman, useful in an election year as a device to show elected officials as tough on foreign miscreants. Indeed, since the Iranian Revolution U.S.-Iranian relations have been a centerpiece in election debates. Conspiracy theorists believe fervently that the Republican Party engineered an “October Surprise” in 1980 with Iranian officials – delaying the release of the American Hostages until after the U.S. Presidential election – and thus denied Jimmy Carter a second term. The purported event -- true or not -- has supplied a permanent political term for American elections. In every presidential election since, U.S.-Iranian relations have been featured in presidential debates and campaign ads, with universal negativity toward Iran. This year is no exception with Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain all expressing hostile attitudes toward Iran. And this year’s October Surprise is the rumor that the Bush administration will bomb Iran just before the election to give a boost to John McCain. Unless the Israeli hawks get there first.
14
DDI KO
Israeli Strike - Obama Israel will strike if Obama wins Steve Forbes, president and chief executive officer as well as Editor-in-Chief of Forbes magazine, 7-29-08, Oil and the Feeble Greenback, Human Events, http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27731 Another big factor in rising energy costs -- one that will become red hot after the November elections -- is Iran. The ruling murderous mullahs are hell-bent to get the Bomb and the means to deliver it. Israeli intelligence calculates Iran will cross the threshold in being able to create a nuclear weapon by the end of 2009. Iran recently conducted missile tests that demonstrate that it can deliver such a bomb to Israel not to mention all of Europe. Iran could also use a shipping platform to lob a weapon onto the U.S. The U.S. has been engaged in fruitless diplomacy with Iran for almost four years. The Israelis feel the window of opportunity to destroy or seriously disrupt Iran’s nuclear ambitions is fast closing. Thus there is a very real possibility that if Barack Obama wins in November, the Israelis will take action before he is inaugurated on January 20. If McCain wins, the Jewish state will probably wait a few months longer to see what will unfold with his administration.
15
DDI KO
Iran Strikes – Turns Oil Iran strikes cause oil shocks Steve Forbes, president and chief executive officer as well as Editor-in-Chief of Forbes magazine, 7-29-08, Oil and the Feeble Greenback, Human Events, http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27731 To get to energy: The possibility of a war against Iran has not escaped the oil markets. The futures price of oil spikes upward in early November. The market is thus betting that military action against Iran may well happen -- and that would, at least short term, seriously disrupt oil flows. This helps explain why the price of oil in terms of gold has moved up in recent months. Normally the ratio of oil/gold price is fairly constant.
16
DDI KO
Iran strikes terrorism Strikes will cause retaliatory terrorism Daniel Byman, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, Brookings Institution, Focus on counterterrorism, 3-1-08, Iran, Terrorism, and Weapons of Mass Destruction, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, Informaworld, Finally, policymakers should recognize that U.S. options with regard to Iranian support for terrorism are limited. The United States has other vital concerns with regard to Iran—both its nuclear program and its activities in Iraq—and pressing hard on terrorism may jeopardize any progress, however limited, in these areas. Iran has shown itself able to resist U.S. economic pressure in the past and is likely to do so in the future as well. Limited military strikes would do little to damage
Iran’s capacity to conduct terrorism and would almost certainly increase its activities, both out of revenge and out of a sense that the United States is irrevocably hostile. The best bet for the United States is to continue to try to shore up allied support to increase pressure on Tehran and otherwise ensure that counterterrorism remains a priority in U.S. policy toward Iran.
17
Iran Strikes Iran Strikes...................................................................................................................................................................................................1 Israel strikes Iran..........................................................................................................................................................................................2 Israel Strikes Iran.........................................................................................................................................................................................3 No strikes – US & Israel..............................................................................................................................................................................4 Obama Strikes..............................................................................................................................................................................................5 Israel Strike !................................................................................................................................................................................................6 Iran Nuclearization now...............................................................................................................................................................................7 US strikes solve Israeli Strikes....................................................................................................................................................................8 Iran not a threat............................................................................................................................................................................................9 No Strikes...................................................................................................................................................................................................10 No Strikes...................................................................................................................................................................................................11 Yes Strikes..................................................................................................................................................................................................12 AT: Bush Strikes Iran.................................................................................................................................................................................13 Bush Strikes Iran – “October Surprise”.....................................................................................................................................................14 Israeli Strike - Obama................................................................................................................................................................................15 Iran Strikes – Turns Oil..............................................................................................................................................................................16 Iran strikes terrorism.............................................................................................................................................................................17
1
DDI KO
Israel strikes Iran Iran strikes inevitable – Israel SMH, 7-31-08, Sydney morning herald, Peace hopes up in air as lame duck flies out, http://www.smh.com.au/news/general/peacehopes-up-in-air-as-lame-duck-flies-out/2008/07/31/1217097436375.html
Both Bush, dogged by his invasion of Iraq, and Olmert by his invasion of Lebanon, are finished as leaders. Abbas has been reduced to a weak, ineffectual leader of the Palestinians, propped up on one side with aid from the US and Europe and on the other by the Israeli military. Waiting noisily in the wings in the event of an early Israeli election is the hawkish former Likud PM Benjamin Netanyahu, whose opposition to any territorial concessions to the Palestinians has, according to opinion polls, positioned him to win a national poll - despite the relief with which he was seen off by voters in 1999. But the issue of what to do about Iran and its nuclear program is in a different category to the Palestinian and Syrian questions. It is one thing to be talking about peace 40 years after a conflict - the world has factored in its absence on both the Palestinian and the Syrian fronts. But it is quite another when influential figures in Washington and Jerusalem talk up the prospect of military strikes against Iran. In June, Olmert warned that the international community had a duty to clarify to Iran that the repercussions of its continued pursuit of nuclear weapons would be "devastating". That was followed by what sounded like a threat from Shaul Mofaz, one of Olmert's ministers who also is a candidate for the leadership, who warned that an Israeli strike on Iran was "unavoidable" because, in his view, sanctions and diplomacy had failed. A wild scenario being canvassed by some Israeli analysts calls for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities by Israeli or American aircraft in the window between the US presidential election and the inauguration of the winning candidate in January. With Bush and Olmert on the way out, it might be called the attack of the lame ducks.
Israel will strike Iran AFP, 7-30-08, Obama says Israel could strike Iran if sanctions fail: report, http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hSFLIDZBLLdXPlpUbrHbdCO00zGw White House hopeful Barack Obama has told fellow Democratic lawmakers that Israel will launch a military strike on Iran if nuclear sanctions fail, ABC News reported Wednesday. The comment was reportedly made in a meeting late Tuesday between Senator Obama and Democratic members of the House of Representatives, following the presidential contender's return from an overseas tour that included Israel. "Nobody said this to me directly but I get the feeling from my talks that if the sanctions don't work, Israel is going to strike Iran," an attendee at the meeting quoted Obama as saying, according to ABC. Neither the Obama campaign nor his Senate office had any immediate comment. Iran has been slapped with three sets of UN Security Council sanctions over its refusal to halt uranium enrichment, a process that makes nuclear fuel but also the core of an atomic bomb. Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Wednesday that his country would not retreat in the face of demands by world powers for Tehran to stop the enrichment. Obama also told Tuesday's meeting that Arab states understood that a nuclear Iran would be a "game changer" for the entire region because of likely Israeli action, another attendee cited by ABC said.
Israeli strike inevitable without US-Iran rapprochement Paul Rogers, Professor of Peace Studies at Bradford University, 7-28-08, Iran, Israel, and the risk of war, http://www.australia.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=265:israel-is-intent-on-a-military-option&catid=41:rotatornews Between this hope and a stony reality, however, falls a shadow. For even if the momentum in Washington has moved away from the planning for a military strike against Tehran's nuclear facilities, the option of an attack by Israel is very much alive. In the complex strategic calculations of the three main state actors, therefore, the mild and provisional rapprochement between the US and Iran is only one counter that in itself does not eliminate the possibility of war (see "Israel, the United States and Iran: the tipping-point", 13 March 2008).
2
DDI KO
Israel Strikes Iran Israeli strikes are inevitable – candidates, diplomacy, and sanctions won’t solve JOHN R. BOLTON, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, 7-15, 2008; Wall Street Journal, Page A19, Opinion, Israel, Iran, and the Bomb, http://www.wsj.com/article/SB121607841801452581.html Iran's test salvo of ballistic missiles last week together with recent threatening rhetoric by commanders of the Islamic Republic's Revolutionary Guards emphasizes how close the Middle East is to a fundamental, in fact an irreversible, turning point. Tehran's efforts to intimidate the United States and Israel from using military force against its nuclear program, combined with yet another diplomatic charm offensive with the Europeans, are two sides of the same policy coin. The regime is buying the short additional period of time it needs to produce deliverable nuclear weapons, the strategic objective it has been pursuing clandestinely for 20 years. Between Iran and its long-sought objective, however, a shadow may fall: targeted military action, either Israeli or American. Yes, Iran cannot deliver a nuclear weapon on target today, and perhaps not for several years. Estimates vary widely, and no one knows for sure when it will have a deliverable weapon except the mullahs, and they're not telling. But that is not the key date. Rather, the crucial turning point is when Iran masters all the capabilities to weaponize without further external possibility of stopping it. Then the decision to weaponize, and its timing, is Tehran's alone. We do not know if Iran is at this point, or very near to it. All we do know is that, after five years of failed diplomacy by the EU-3 (Britain, France and Germany), Iran is simply five years closer to nuclear weapons. And yet, true to form, State Department comments to Congress last week – even as Iran's missiles were ascending – downplayed Iran's nuclear progress, ignoring the cost of failed diplomacy. But the confident assumption that we have years to deal with the problem is high-stakes gambling on a policy that cannot be reversed if it fails. If Iran reaches weaponization before State's jaunty prediction, the Middle East, and indeed global, balance of power changes in potentially catastrophic ways. And consider what comes next for the U.S.: the Bush
administration's last six months pursuing its limp diplomatic efforts, plus six months of a new president getting his national security team and policies together. In other words, one more year for Tehran to proceed unhindered to "the point of no return." We have almost certainly lost the race between giving "strong incentives" for Iran to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and its scientific and technological efforts to do just that. Swift, sweeping, effectively enforced sanctions might have made a difference five years ago. No longer. Existing sanctions have doubtless caused some pain, but Iran's real economic woes stem from nearly 30 years of mismanagement by the Islamic Revolution. More sanctions today (even assuming, heroically, support from Russia and China) will simply be too little, too late. While regime change in Tehran would be the preferable solution, there is almost no possibility of dislodging the mullahs in time. Had we done more in the past five years to support the discontented – the young, the non-Persian minorities and the economically disaffected – things might be different. Regime change, however, cannot be turned on and off like a light switch, although the difficulty of effecting it is no excuse not to do more now. That is why Israel is now at an urgent decision point: whether to use targeted military force to break Iran's indigenous control over the nuclear fuel cycle at one or more critical points. If successful, such highly risky and deeply unattractive air strikes or sabotage will not resolve the Iranian nuclear crisis. But they have the potential to buy considerable time, thereby putting that critical asset back on our side of the ledger rather than on Iran's. With whatever time is bought, we may be able to effect regime change in Tehran, or at least get the process underway. The alternative is Iran with nuclear weapons, the most deeply unattractive alternative of all. But the urgency of the situation has not impressed Barack Obama or the EU-3. Remarkably, on July 9, Sen. Obama, as if stumbling on a new idea, said Iran "must suffer threats of economic sanctions" and that we needed "direct diplomacy . . . so we avoid provocation" and "give strong incentives . . . to change their behavior." Javier Solana, chief EU negotiator, was at the time busy fixing a meeting with the Iranians to continue five years of doing exactly what Mr. Obama was proclaiming, without results. John McCain responded to Iran's missile salvo by stressing again the need for a workable missile defense system to defend the U.S. against attacks by rogue states like Iran and North Korea. He is undoubtedly correct, highlighting yet another reason why November's election is so critical, given the unceasing complaints about missile defense from most Democrats.
3
DDI KO
No strikes – US & Israel US and Israel won’t strike Iran now – next president is key The Jerusalem Post, 7-7-08, 'Iran leaks reflect conflict in US administration' http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1215330878502&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
One Israeli diplomatic official said that as the debate rages in Washington, it was clear that Israel would be unable to take military action without a green light from the US. "Everyone understands that we could not take action without US approval," the official said, "both because we would need to fly through airspace controlled by the US, and we would need their help in dealing with repercussions from any attack." The most direct air route to Iran is through Iraqi airspace, which is controlled by the US. "We would need their help in carrying out the attack, and also afterward," the official said. "We would have to deal with possible military action from Hizbullah and Syria, and also diplomatic fallout. Don't expect the world to clap if we attack Iran, and as a result oil prices spiral from $140 a barrel to $300 a barrel." The official said Israel would need US diplomatic cover to deal with the world's condemnation, and possibly even sanctions, in the aftermath of a raid. Although Israeli officials said they were not surprised by the various different assessments coming out of Washington, because they have long been aware of the internal divisions on this matter, they said they were slightly surprised by remarks made by Mullen about the "third front" because he had not issued these warnings in his meetings with top Israeli military brass during his visit to Tel Aviv last week. At a press conference in Washington last week, Mullen said that "Opening up a third front right now would be extremely stressful on us," adding that while he believed Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons the efforts needed to focus on diplomatic, financial and economic actions. The Israeli officials said that the talks with Mullen had focused primarily on Iran but had also dealt with other regional issues such as Hamas's military buildup in Gaza and Hizbullah's in Lebanon. They added, however, that the
concern voiced by Mullen was real and reflected fears in Washington that a strike against Iran would destabilize the region and undermine America's recent success in Iraq. Meanwhile, Anthony H. Cordesman, an American national security analyst who served as a former national security assistant to presumptive Republic Party presidential nominee John McCain said Sunday that the US is trying to pursue the diplomatic option with Iran over its nuclear program since it does not view the nuclear threat by the Islamic Republic as an "urgent" crisis. "I think we are contemplating to do exactly what we said we are doing - which is to try to pursue diplomatic options, and the reasons are very simple: We do not see this as an urgent crisis in terms of Iran rapidly acquiring weapons or effective delivery systems," said Cordesman in an address at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Cordesman, who also served as a former director of intelligence assessment in the Office of the US Secretary of Defense, conceded that the US assessment on Iran's nuclear program is at odds with Israeli intelligence estimates, and said that the whole issue is likely to be left to the next US President. "If that assessment changes, it does differ from some Israeli experts, then our timing might change. But I suspect that is going to be an issue for President Obama or President McCain," he said. "In terms of US strikes on Iran, we have a contingency plan for virtually anything. And in this case, are we going to constantly have the ability to execute some kind of strike plan against Iran's missiles and weapons of mass destruction, including its nuclear facilities? Yes. Are we about to execute it? No! The president of the United States has said that, the secretary of defense, the secretary of state [and] the chairman of Joint Chiefs."
4
DDI KO
Obama Strikes Obama will attack Iran Walter Russell Mead, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, 7-28-08, LA Times, Obama the irony man, http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-mead27-2008jul27,0,7118072.story
In Israel, Obama went to great pains to tell anxious Israelis that his commitment to Israel's security is "unshakable" and that Tel Aviv would have no stronger or more reliable ally than an Obama administration. Like President Bush, Obama has promised Israel that he would never ask it to make concessions that endanger its security. Obama also appears to have cleared up the ambiguity in his stance on Iran. The world community, he told the Israelis, "must prevent" the mullahs from getting a nuclear bomb. Presumably, that means if negotiations fail to stop Iran from enriching uranium, and sanctions don't do the trick either, the world community will have to explore other options. Obama's pilgrimage abroad points to a larger truth: In the midst of a bitter political year, a loose bipartisan consensus on the Mideast may be emerging. And, irony of ironies, the consensus, seemingly embraced by Obama, seems closer to Bush's views than to those of antiwar activists who propelled the Illinois senator to the nomination.
the
Obama will strike Iran Dan Kovalik, a human and labor rights lawyer living in Pittsburgh, graduate of Columbia Law School, 7-29-08, Obama Must Take Stand Against Attack on Iran, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-kovalik/obama-must-take-stand-aga_b_115585.html Instead, what we have right now is a candidate in Obama who refuses to lead on this critical issue of war and peace. Thus, Senator Obama publicly told Iran that it should abide by the Bush Administration's arbitrary deadline (which runs out a week from now) to agree to suspend its nuclear enrichment program or suffer unspecified sanctions, possibly even a military assault. Senator Obama himself now says that no option (which would include a military one) is off the table. Then, when interviewed in the Jerusalem Post about whether he would support an Israeli strike against Iran, he stated simply "that Israelis, and Israelis alone have to make decisions about their own security." In addition, Senator Obama pronounced during his trip to the Middle East and in his Berlin speech that preventing a nuclear Iran is one of the top priorities of the world today, thus giving encouragement to those in the U.S. and Israel who are considering a military strike as we speak. The truth is that the premise of such a claim is simply false. First, the fact that Israel has 150 nuclear weapons, though it refuses to admit as much, means that Iran (which currently has none) does not pose a real military threat to Israel in any case, for any strike by Iran would mean certain annihilation for that country. In addition, we have the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate which concluded that Iran, as it is now claiming, abandoned its nuclear weapons program back in 2003. It must also be noted, lest we forget, that Iran had actually offered back in 2003 to engage in constructive discussions with the U.S. over "its disputed nuclear program, support for militant groups that the United States labels terrorists and the acceptance of Israel," and it offered "active Iranian support for Iraqi stabilization." This overture, as we all know, was ignored by the U.S. State Department. In addition, it is worth recalling that, back in October of 2001, Iran actually provided critical assistance to the U.S.'s military efforts against the Taliban in Afghanistan - an effort which Senator Obama has made clear he supports. In short, Iran is not the threat which Bush, McCain, and yes, even Obama through his rhetoric, are leading us to believe. Indeed, all of the histrionics over Iran are eerily reminiscent of those which led us into the war against Iraq. However, Senator Obama, in a reversal of his brave stance back in 2002 against the Iraq war - a stance which he trumpeted as one of the prime reasons to vote for him for the Democratic nomination - is now enabling another ill-conceived and possibly much more destructive, war to go forward.
5
DDI KO
Israel Strike ! Israeli strike on Iran causes nuclear war Benny Morris, a professor of Middle Eastern history at Ben-Gurion University, 7-18-08, Using Bombs to Stave Off War, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/opinion/18morris.html
ISRAEL will almost surely attack Iran’s nuclear sites in the next four to seven months — and the leaders in Washington and even Tehran should hope that the attack will be successful enough to cause at least a significant delay in the Iranian production schedule, if not complete destruction, of that country’s nuclear program. Because if the attack fails, the Middle East will almost certainly face a nuclear war — either through a subsequent pre-emptive Israeli nuclear strike or a nuclear exchange shortly after Iran gets the bomb. It is in the interest of neither Iran nor the United States (nor, for that matter, the rest of the world) that Iran be savaged by a nuclear strike, or that both Israel and Iran suffer such a fate. We know what would ensue: a traumatic destabilization of the Middle East with resounding political and military consequences around the globe, serious injury to the West’s oil supply and radioactive pollution of the earth’s atmosphere and water. Israel-Iran war escalates to a nuclear holocaust Benny Morris, a professor of Middle Eastern history at Ben-Gurion University, 7-18-08, Using Bombs to Stave Off War, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/opinion/18morris.html But the
more likely result is that the international community will continue to do nothing effective and that Iran will speed up its efforts to produce the bomb that can destroy Israel. The Iranians will also likely retaliate by attacking Israel’s cities with ballistic missiles (possibly topped with chemical or biological warheads); by prodding its local clients, Hezbollah and Hamas, to unleash their own armories against Israel; and by activating international Muslim terrorist networks against Israeli and Jewish — and possibly American — targets worldwide (though the Iranians may at the last moment be wary of provoking American military involvement). Such a situation would confront Israeli leaders with two agonizing, dismal choices. One is to allow the Iranians to acquire the bomb and hope for the best — meaning a nuclear standoff, with the prospect of mutual assured destruction preventing the Iranians from actually using the weapon. The other would be to use the Iranian counterstrikes as an excuse to escalate and use the only means available that will actually destroy the Iranian nuclear project: Israel’s own nuclear arsenal. Given the fundamentalist, self-sacrificial mindset of the mullahs who run Iran, Israel knows that deterrence may not work as well as it did with the comparatively rational men who ran the Kremlin and White House during the cold war. They are likely to use any bomb they build, both because of ideology and because of fear of Israeli nuclear pre-emption. Thus an Israeli nuclear strike to prevent the Iranians from taking the final steps toward getting the bomb is probable. The alternative is letting Tehran have its bomb. In either case, a Middle Eastern nuclear holocaust would be in the cards.
6
DDI KO
Iran Nuclearization now Status quo won’t solve Iran nuclearization Benny Morris, a professor of Middle Eastern history at Ben-Gurion University, 7-18-08, Using Bombs to Stave Off War, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/opinion/18morris.html But should Israel’s conventional assault fail to significantly harm or stall the Iranian program, a ratcheting up of the Iranian-Israeli conflict to a nuclear level will most likely follow. Every intelligence agency in the world believes the Iranian program is geared toward making weapons, not to the peaceful applications of nuclear power. And, despite the current talk of additional economic sanctions, everyone knows that such measures have so far led nowhere and are unlikely to be applied with sufficient scope to cause Iran real pain, given Russia’s and China’s continued recalcitrance and Western Europe’s (and America’s) ambivalence in behavior, if not in rhetoric. Western intelligence agencies agree that
Iran will reach the “point of no return” in acquiring the capacity to produce nuclear weapons in one to four years.
7
DDI KO
US strikes solve Israeli Strikes US strikes solve Israeli strikes Benny Morris, a professor of Middle Eastern history at Ben-Gurion University, 7-18-08, Using Bombs to Stave Off War, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/opinion/18morris.html Which leaves the world with only one option if it wishes to halt Iran’s march toward nuclear weaponry: the military option, meaning an aerial assault by either the United States or Israel. Clearly, America has the conventional military capacity to do the job, which would involve a protracted air assault against Iran’s air defenses followed by strikes on the nuclear sites themselves. But, as a result of the Iraq imbroglio, and what is rapidly turning into the Afghan imbroglio, the American public has little enthusiasm for wars in the Islamic lands. This curtails the White House’s ability to begin yet another major military campaign in pursuit of a goal that is not seen as a vital national interest by many Americans. Which leaves only Israel — the country threatened almost daily with destruction by Iran’s leaders. Thus the recent reports about Israeli plans and preparations to attack Iran (the period from Nov. 5 to Jan. 19 seems the best bet, as it gives the West half a year to try the diplomatic route but ensures that Israel will have support from a lame-duck White House). The problem is that Israel’s military capacities are far smaller than America’s and, given the distances involved, the fact that the Iranian sites are widely dispersed and underground, and Israel’s inadequate intelligence, it is unlikely that the Israeli conventional forces, even if allowed the use of Jordanian and Iraqi airspace (and perhaps, pending American approval, even Iraqi air strips) can destroy or perhaps significantly delay the Iranian nuclear project. Nonetheless, Israel, believing that its very existence is at stake — and this is a feeling shared by most Israelis across the political spectrum — will certainly make the effort. Israel’s leaders, from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert down, have all explicitly stated that an Iranian bomb means Israel’s destruction; Iran will not be allowed to get the bomb.
8
DDI KO
Iran not a threat Iran’s not a threat Dan Kovalik, a human and labor rights lawyer living in Pittsburgh, graduate of Columbia Law School, 7-29-08, Obama Must Take Stand Against Attack on Iran, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-kovalik/obama-must-take-stand-aga_b_115585.html
First, the fact that Israel has 150 nuclear weapons, though it refuses to admit as much, means that Iran (which currently has none) does not pose a real military threat to Israel in any case, for any strike by Iran would mean certain annihilation for that country. In addition, we have the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate which concluded that Iran, as it is now claiming, abandoned its nuclear weapons program back in 2003. It must also be noted, lest we forget, that Iran had actually offered back in 2003 to engage in constructive discussions with the U.S. over "its disputed nuclear program, support for militant groups that the United States labels terrorists and the acceptance of Israel," and it offered "active Iranian support for Iraqi stabilization." This overture, as we all know, was ignored by the U.S. State Department. In addition, it is worth recalling that, back in October of 2001, Iran actually provided critical assistance to the U.S.'s military efforts against the Taliban in Afghanistan - an effort which Senator Obama has made clear he supports.
9
DDI KO
No Strikes No strikes now – moving toward peace talks Harry Sterling, former diplomat, 7-30-08, Embassy, Bush Playing with Nuclear Fire on Iran, http://www.embassymag.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=/2008/july/30/sterling/
Until a few days ago, some feared increasing tension between Iran, Israel and the United States had reached the point where actual hostilities were conceivable. Israel, as well as the U.S., had been signalling that military action against Iran's nuclear facilities could be an option if Tehran didn't agree to end its nuclear enrichment program, which they believed is based on an Iranian intention to develop a nuclear weapons capability. Several Israeli parliamentarians have called for their government to move against Iran before it's too late. To up the pressure on Iran, Israeli authorities made sure that long-range exercises by Israel's airforce—involving flights capable of reaching Iranian nuclear sites—were clearly publicized for the benefit of the Iranians. In recent days, rumours had circulated that Israeli fighter aircraft have been spotted at American-controlled airbases in Iraq, their presence supposedly a warning Israeli forces could attack Iranian facilities much easier than thought. (However, Iraq's President Nouri alMaliki insists Iraq will not permit its territory to be used for attacks against neighbouring states.) In response to such veiled threats, the Iranians went on their own offensive, carrying out two separate missile launches, one involving the Shahab-3 missile with a 2,000 kilometre range, easily capable of striking targets within Israel and beyond. A representative of Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said Tehran would hit both Israel and 32 U.S. bases in the Persian Gulf if Iran were attacked. But then, in a sudden reversal of the previous bellicose rhetoric, both the Iranians and Americans abruptly toned down their mutual sabrerattling, suggesting they were interested in entering a dialogue with each other. In an atypical conciliatory approach, representatives of Ayatollah Khamenei indicated Tehran was prepared to discuss the most recent compromise proposals tabled by European Union representatives (backed by the U.S.). And then, in a complete about-face from its previous, uncompromising insistence that Washington wouldn't participate in talks with Iran unless Tehran first suspended its nuclear enrichment program, the Bush administration announced it was sending Undersecretary of State William Burns to Geneva to join talks last weekend between the EU and Iranian negotiators. Washington also indicated it might establish a U.S. interests mission in Tehran, the first since the 1979 Iranian Revolution—a move Iranian President Ahmadinejad uncharacteristically warmly welcomed.
10
DDI KO
No Strikes US won’t strike Iran Paul Rogers, Professor of Peace Studies at Bradford University, 7-28-08, Iran, Israel, and the risk of war, http://www.australia.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=265:israel-is-intent-on-a-military-option&catid=41:rotatornews
The shift in Washington's approach to Iran seems to have been the result of pressure from two branches of government: the state department, where influential policy-makers have sought to revive a diplomatic path over Iran; and the defence department, where there has been real concern over the possible consequences of a military confrontation. This has been voiced by a number of senior military commanders, most recently Admiral Mike Mullen, chair of the joint chiefs-of-staff (see "Top US admiral says strike on Iran means turmoil", Reuters, 20 July 2008). Mullen has conveyed a pithy scepticism about the fallout of war with Iran ("This is a very unstable part of the world and I don't need it to be more unstable") with a sharp awareness of the limits imposed by the US's own military overstretch ("Right now I'm fighting two wars and I don't need a third one"). At the same time, he is emphatic that Iran has to be "deterred" in its ostensible ambition of achieving a nuclear-weapon capacity (see "U.S. admiral calls for global pressure on Iran", Xinhua, 21 July 2008)
11
DDI KO
Yes Strikes Bush will strike Iran while in office PressTV, 7-29-08, Israeli says Iran war not imminent, http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=65061§ionid=351020101 According to Jerusalem Post, the unnamed official involved in Tel Aviv-Washington talks referred to the ongoing strategic talks concerning Iran and said, "We are still far away from the point where military officers are poring over maps together planning an operation." However, some Israeli officials see the move by the US to send its number three diplomat William Burns to the Geneva nuclear talks with Iran as an effort to garner international support in the event President George W. Bush decides to attack Iran during his last months in office. "This way they will be able to say they tried everything," one Israeli official speculated. "This increases America's chances of gaining more public support domestically as well as the support of European nations which are today opposed to military action." Israel, the sole possessor of a nuclear arsenal in the Middle East, staged a large-scale military maneuver in early June in a move interpreted as muscle-flexing against Iran.
Although US officials claim they are committed to a diplomatic solution to Tehran's nuclear standoff, they refuse to rule out the use of military option against Iran should it continue uranium enrichment. Strikes now – election irrelevant Andrew Glass is a contributing editor at Politico. 7-31-08, Waiting for an October surprise, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/12185.html The media happily chew on the next two predictable events on the political calendar: the choice of running mates by John McCain and Barack Obama and the polling “bounce” the presidential nominees may harvest from their party’s national political convention. Beyond those compass points, we sail into uncharted waters. Will a presidential campaign seemingly headed for victory founder on the political rocks of this year’s October surprise? Merely raising that question presumes that there will be — to use the current parlance — such a game-changing event. While the historical record reflects pretty good odds that at least one October surprise will occur, the past cannot tell us what impact, if any, it would have on the November results. President Bush’s status as an unpopular lame duck makes it less likely that he would pull one off, at least one that could aid and abet the Republican cause. Thus, a Bush decision to order an airstrike against Iran’s nuclear sites could backfire with voters when — not if — the Democrats brand it as a political ploy. Woe to McCain should that notion stick at the polls. And on a purely political level, Bush knows, notwithstanding Obama’s assertions to the contrary, that McCain has no enduring
interest in preserving the Bush legacy. So this year’s top entry in the surprise sweepstakes is the prospect of Israel attacking Iran on its own — without seeking Bush’s permission. The Israelis might wait until after Election Day to launch such a salvo because, presumably, it would be easier for Bush to offer American support with the campaign out of the way. But what if Israeli intelligence determines that the Jewish state is in imminent danger from a pre-emptive blow?
12
DDI KO
AT: Bush Strikes Iran Bush is pushing for diplomacy with Iran Juan Cole, President of the Global Americana Institute, 7-31-08, Why Bush folded on Iran, http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/07/31/iran/ Pundits and diplomats nearly got whiplash from the double take they did when George W. Bush sent the No. 3 man in the State Department to sit at a table on July 19 across from an Iranian negotiator, without any preconditions. When Bush had addressed the Israeli Knesset in May, he made headlines by denouncing any negotiation with "terrorists and radicals" as "the false comfort of appeasement." What drove W. to undermine John McCain by suddenly adopting Barack Obama's foreign policy prescription on Iran? Back in mid-July, the Geneva talks were attended by representatives of the five veto-wielding nations on the United Nations Security Council, including the U.S., along with a delegate from Germany and chief European Union negotiator Javier Solana. E.U. parleys with Tehran have been going on for years, but the presence of undersecretary of state for political affairs William Burns signaled a new seriousness to Washington's commitment to the diplomatic track. What the U.S. and its European allies were offering Iran at the Geneva meeting was termed a "freeze for freeze" deal. Iran would not attempt to improve on its rudimentary ability to enrich uranium to low levels, or go beyond running 3,000 centrifuges, in return for a pause in the spiral of economic sanctions imposed on Iran by the U.N. Security Council. The blogosphere and Op-Ed pages were rife with speculation about the reason for Bush's startling reversal. Former National Security Council staffer and Columbia University Iran expert Gary Sick implied that Vice President Dick Cheney and the hawks had lost control of Iran policy to foreign policy realists such as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in a behind-the-scenes Oval Office rumble. His thesis was supported by the howls of outrage against Bush's "appeasement" of Iran published in the Wall Street Journal opinion pages by former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton and by the American Enterprise Institute's Michael Rubin, both prominently associated with the neoconservative movement and with propagandizing for the Iraq war. As usual, the neocon doth protest too much. Burns conducted no real negotiations with the Iranian delegation, simply restating Washington's insistence that Iran cease its enrichment activities. His presence at the negotiations was mainly symbolic. Still, on the symbolic level of politics, Washington's change of direction was momentous. Bush had clearly executed a "Rockford" or reverse 180 of the sort you see stunt drivers pull off in spy movies. And the reason for that reversal of course was, indeed, reality -- not just a recognition of the limits of the U.S. military, but a taste of $5-per-gallon gas. Bush and Cheney, both oilmen, invaded one oil-rich country and said its reconstruction would be paid for by a flood of cheap oil. Now, ironically, one of the main reasons they have had to scale back their ambitions for a second oil-rich country, Iran, is the crushing effect of expensive oil on the U.S. and world economy. It was just a year ago that war with Iran seemed imminent. Last August David Wurmser, a major neoconservative figure who had just left Cheney's staff revealed that the vice president was talking about having Israel hit Iran's nuclear research facilities. At the same time, Afghanistan expert Barnett Rubin went public with what he was told by a Bush administration insider -- that Cheney would make a big push for a strike on Iran in the fall of 2007. Journalist Seymour Hersh reported that Cheney was attempting to reconfigure the Iraq war as a struggle with Iran. And, indeed, Cheney did make threats against Iran at institutions of the Israel lobby such as the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. In December 2007, however, the intelligence community pushed back. Key findings from the
National Intelligence Estimate, released that month, showed that Iran had mothballed any weapons-related research since early 2003. The Cheney push for one more war was effectively blocked. In recent months, several major developments have strengthened the case for dealing with Iran diplomatically rather than militarily. The U.S. military is more overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan than ever. The resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the tribal areas of northwest Pakistan has required a significant increase in the number of U.S. and NATO troops during the past year. Iranian proxies in Iraq and Afghanistan could easily target U.S. bases with Katyusha rockets in retaliation for any U.S. strike on the nuclear research facilities at Natanz near Isfahan.
13
DDI KO
Bush Strikes Iran – “October Surprise” Bush will strike Iran before the elections to give McCain a boost William O. Beeman, professor and chair of the department of anthropology at the University of Minnesota, 7-21-08, Playing Games with Iran, Foreign Policy In Focus, http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5387
Hostile rhetoric against Iran also plays into the U.S. electoral process. For American politicians, Iran is a universal bogeyman, useful in an election year as a device to show elected officials as tough on foreign miscreants. Indeed, since the Iranian Revolution U.S.-Iranian relations have been a centerpiece in election debates. Conspiracy theorists believe fervently that the Republican Party engineered an “October Surprise” in 1980 with Iranian officials – delaying the release of the American Hostages until after the U.S. Presidential election – and thus denied Jimmy Carter a second term. The purported event -- true or not -- has supplied a permanent political term for American elections. In every presidential election since, U.S.-Iranian relations have been featured in presidential debates and campaign ads, with universal negativity toward Iran. This year is no exception with Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain all expressing hostile attitudes toward Iran. And this year’s October Surprise is the rumor that the Bush administration will bomb Iran just before the election to give a boost to John McCain. Unless the Israeli hawks get there first.
14
DDI KO
Israeli Strike - Obama Israel will strike if Obama wins Steve Forbes, president and chief executive officer as well as Editor-in-Chief of Forbes magazine, 7-29-08, Oil and the Feeble Greenback, Human Events, http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27731 Another big factor in rising energy costs -- one that will become red hot after the November elections -- is Iran. The ruling murderous mullahs are hell-bent to get the Bomb and the means to deliver it. Israeli intelligence calculates Iran will cross the threshold in being able to create a nuclear weapon by the end of 2009. Iran recently conducted missile tests that demonstrate that it can deliver such a bomb to Israel not to mention all of Europe. Iran could also use a shipping platform to lob a weapon onto the U.S. The U.S. has been engaged in fruitless diplomacy with Iran for almost four years. The Israelis feel the window of opportunity to destroy or seriously disrupt Iran’s nuclear ambitions is fast closing. Thus there is a very real possibility that if Barack Obama wins in November, the Israelis will take action before he is inaugurated on January 20. If McCain wins, the Jewish state will probably wait a few months longer to see what will unfold with his administration.
15
DDI KO
Iran Strikes – Turns Oil Iran strikes cause oil shocks Steve Forbes, president and chief executive officer as well as Editor-in-Chief of Forbes magazine, 7-29-08, Oil and the Feeble Greenback, Human Events, http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27731 To get to energy: The possibility of a war against Iran has not escaped the oil markets. The futures price of oil spikes upward in early November. The market is thus betting that military action against Iran may well happen -- and that would, at least short term, seriously disrupt oil flows. This helps explain why the price of oil in terms of gold has moved up in recent months. Normally the ratio of oil/gold price is fairly constant.
16
DDI KO
Iran strikes terrorism Strikes will cause retaliatory terrorism Daniel Byman, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, Brookings Institution, Focus on counterterrorism, 3-1-08, Iran, Terrorism, and Weapons of Mass Destruction, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, Informaworld, Finally, policymakers should recognize that U.S. options with regard to Iranian support for terrorism are limited. The United States has other vital concerns with regard to Iran—both its nuclear program and its activities in Iraq—and pressing hard on terrorism may jeopardize any progress, however limited, in these areas. Iran has shown itself able to resist U.S. economic pressure in the past and is likely to do so in the future as well. Limited military strikes would do little to damage
Iran’s capacity to conduct terrorism and would almost certainly increase its activities, both out of revenge and out of a sense that the United States is irrevocably hostile. The best bet for the United States is to continue to try to shore up allied support to increase pressure on Tehran and otherwise ensure that counterterrorism remains a priority in U.S. policy toward Iran.
17
Related Documents
373 Ko Iran Strikes
December 2019 15
390 Gt Iran Strikes
December 2019 18
373
October 2019 30
373
June 2020 12
425 Ss Answers To Iran Strikes
December 2019 16