How I learned to love the Bomb

By Ted Belman

Aluff Benn advises that the US is telling Israel, Get used to the Iranian bomb

Although both talk the talk, major differences exist

The major differences of opinion can be summarized as follows: The Americans desire a “dialogue” with Iran and the isolation of Syria, and the Israelis want talks with the Syrians and moves against Iran. Naturally each side has its own concerns. Israel is afraid of nuclear weapons in Iran and believes that it is possible to prevent their development only through a serious economic boycott and threats of a military operation. The American establishment is less worried about the Iranian nuclear power and balks at the use of force in the wake of the failure in Iraq.

The message of the American participants in the meeting was clear: Neither the U.S. nor Israel has a military option against Iran. Bombing the nuclear facilities would cause oil prices to skyrocket and would only strengthen the extremists in Tehran. In their view, Iran would respond by hitting the American soldiers stationed in Iraq and the oil facilities in the Gulf, and would begin terrorist operations in America.

That’s the way I see it also.

No one is going to bomb Iran.

Israel should keep Judea and Samaria.

November 19, 2007 | 3 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

3 Comments / 3 Comments

  1. Ted,

    The way Aluf Benn reports on “the conclusion raised at the “strategic dialogue” conference which took place last week in New York under the auspices of the Institute for National Security Studies in Israel and the American Council on Foreign Relations”, may well represent the thinking of the respective participants.

    That however speaks to both sides resigned to trying to manage and control the damage being caused both America and Israel by the war being waged against them by radical Islamic forces. If Benn has it right, both America and Israel have given up before even starting to engage the radical Islamic enemy full bore with victory as the only goal.

    Further, if Benn has correctly discerned the message of the Americans, American foreign policy is shaped by its dependence on oil and her fear that America would suffer consequences with oil shortages and skyrocketing prices if Iran were attacked.

    While that may be the current thinking, it is in essence, thinking borne of a lack of resolve to fully engage the radical Islamic enemy for fear of suffering consequences.

    America is still powerful and probably powerful enough to sustain short term pain to achieve long term gain, but the will of Americans to suffer even short term pain is just not there.

    Attacking Iran does not mean necessarily that the radical mullocracy and other radical elements in Tehran would be strengthened.

    An attack on the main nuclear facilities buried deep underground probably would not destroy them but would severely disable them and destroy access to them. An attack on Iran’s military installations could well cripple Iran militarily. An attack on Iran’s limited refining capacity and strategic infrastructures would double Iran over in economic pain.

    In such case, the American belief that the majority of Iranians are against the mullocracy and wish to establish a more democratic government and incorporate more Western norms including freedoms will be tested. If that American belief is well founded, then the majority of Iranians will come together to blame the mullocracy and radical elements within Iran for the devastation America visits on Iran and will then work to bring in the kind of government that the majority of Iranians allegedly want.

    America would be there to help without any substantial troop commitment, but rather advisers and aid, to restore Iran’s essential services and needs to enable the majority of Iranians to rebuild a new government and social order that posed no threat to America or the West.

    If however, the American belief about what the majority of Iranians are about and they instead show their support for the mullocracy, then America can stand by and let them suffer the fate that Iran richly deserves for all the lost and destroyed lives and huge financial losses America has sustained because of the radical Islamists in Iran.

    And on the point of the priceless lives taken and shattered as well as the billions of dollars lost and the trillions of dollars in increased American debt caused by the Iranians and radical Islam, why should America not seek to recoup at least part of that loss by taking control of the Iranian oil fields and taking their fair share of the oil in compensation for America’s losses.

    As regards a feared Iranian direct or sponsored attack against America on American soil, America could temporarily suspend or limit civil rights in order to facilitate finding, apprehending, prosecuting and deporting all radical Islamists within America via an expedited prosecutorial, judicial and immigration process.

    The civil libertarians who would cry foul and scream that America would have set herself on a slippery slope to denial of all American’s rights, would be shut up and shut down. Such temporary measures will instituted by America leading up to and during WWII and in the aftermath with the Soviets presenting a threat to America, but those measures were only temporary.

    The slippery slope argument falls and the argument for national security and protection of Americans should always take precedence in war time.

    America, as much as she wants to deny it, is at war with all facets of radical Islam.

    Radical Islam does not come in only a few flavors such as Al Qaeda, the Taliban and the Iranian mullocracy. Radical Islam multifaceted and includes the radical Islamist leaders and their terrorist, footsoldiers, radical Islamic supporters including the financiers of radical Islam and that includes the Saudi government and Saudi nationals and a whole host of Muslims in the West, who while not aligned with the radicals on every tenet of the radical Islamic beliefs, can be induced to join the ranks of radical Islam including the ranks of the hardcore terrorists on the basis of one single issue they find common cause with.

    If the Republicans and the Democrats would come together and explain to the Americans that they indeed are at war and work to gain the majority of support from Americans to become fully engaged in that war, that would go a long way to changing the course of history that we see unfolding now and that course of history is getting very ugly.

  2. Benn is basing his speculation on comments from the US Council on Foreign Relations. Here’s their roster:

    Co-Chairman of the Board Carla A. Hills
    Co-Chairman of the Board Robert E. Rubin
    Vice Chairman Richard E. Salomon
    President Richard N. Haass
    Board of Directors
    Director Peter Ackerman
    Director Fouad Ajami
    Director Madeleine K. Albright
    Director Charlene Barshefsky
    Director Henry S. Bienen
    Director Stephen W. Bosworth
    Director Tom Brokaw
    Director Sylvia Mathews Burwell
    Director Frank J. Caufield
    Director Kenneth M. Duberstein
    Director Martin S. Feldstein
    Director Richard N. Foster
    Director Stephen Friedman
    Director Ann M. Fudge
    Director Helene D. Gayle
    Director Maurice R. Greenberg
    Director Richard C. Holbrooke
    Director Karen Elliott House
    Director Alberto Ibargüen
    Director Henry R. Kravis
    Director Jami Miscik
    Director Michael H. Moskow
    Director Joseph S. Nye, Jr.
    Director Ronald L. Olson
    Director James W. Owen
    Director Colin L. Powell
    Director David M. Rubenstein
    Director Anne-Marie Slaughter
    Director Joan E. Spero
    Director Vin Weber
    Director Christine Todd Whitman
    Director Fareed Zakaria

    I’ve highlighted just a few of the Executives and Directors whose world-view is well-known and who have been consistently on the wrong side of the debate regarding the dangers of Islamofascism.

    Not to say the CFR is not influential but they represent only one very narrow perspective on US policy. This is a group which is pro-UN, supported the bombing of Serbia, favored unconditional talks with North Korea, and opposed the Iraq war.

    It would be shocking and entirely inconsistent with their MO to discover that they support military action against Iran.

Comments are closed.