Measures and countermeasures
There are signs that things are coming to a head with Iran, according to Caroline Glick:
when faced with a real possibility that the US or Israel or a combination of states are ready and willing to attack Iran’s nuclear installations, elBaradei seeks to undermine them by questioning the salience of the threat. ElBaradei’s statement of course was not made in a vacuum. It came against the backdrop of an increasing unanimity of opinion among top Bush administration members that Iran must be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons. Last Thursday, President George W. Bush said that a nuclear armed Iran would foment World War III.
The next day, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who until recently was known to oppose military action against Iran and to minimize the danger that a nuclear-armed Iran would constitute to the US, said at a press briefing that a nuclear-armed Iran would likely spark a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and was liable to foment a major war. Gates added that in light of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s stated desire to destroy Israel, “Washington couldn’t trust that Iran would handle nuclear weapons responsibly.” Standing next to Gates last Thursday was Admiral Michael Mullen, the new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Mullen rebuffed assertions that the US campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq have strained military resources to the point that the US today cannot mount an effective campaign against Iran. As he put it, “From a military standpoint, there is more than enough reserve” to mount an attack against Iran’s nuclear installations.
While Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice continues to champion negotiations with the mullahs, in testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Wednesday Rice acknowledged that “the policies of Iran constitute perhaps the single greatest challenge for American security interests in the Middle East and possibly around the world.” And then there is Israel. It appears that both the IDF and the government are earnestly preparing for the possibility of war. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s sudden visits to Moscow, Paris and London, and Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s trip to Washington this week were all devoted to the Iranian nuclear project…it seems reasonable to assume that Olmert and Barak did not fly to those foreign capitals empty-handed. Indeed by some accounts they brought with them new and incriminating information regarding the current status of Iran’s nuclear program…
it is important to note Barak’s crash-program aimed at purchasing and deploying missile defense systems capable of covering all of Israel as quickly as possible, and last week’s media reports that US, British and Australian commandos are fighting Iranian forces inside of Iran close to the Iran-Iraq border by Basra.
Assuming that all of these developments do in fact mean that the day is quickly approaching where Iran’s nuclear installations come under attack, a discussion of some of the likely outcomes of such a strike seems in order….Iran will direct a counter-strike against Israel that will include a ballistic missile attack carried out jointly by Iran, Syria and Hizbullah in Lebanon. Furthermore, Iran will direct Hizbullah terror cells throughout the world to carry out attacks against Jewish and American targets.
A little more on Iran’s possible response via Stratfor:
Iran has commissioned Imad Fayez Mugniyah, a notorious Hezbollah leader, to organize cells of Shiite operatives in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates and Bahrain to fight against the United States and pro-U.S. Arabs in the event of war against Iran, a source said Oct. 25. Trainees from the Persian Gulf region reportedly have arrived in Lebanon and are conducting drills in the Bekaa Valley…Mugniyah is spending most of his time these days in Lebanon and has in many ways overshadowed Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah as the organization’s strongman…
Iran has a clear interest in raising the cost of a U.S. attack against the Islamic Republic by demonstrating its ability to retaliate through Shiite militant assets throughout the region, giving the Gulf states something to consider during their discussions with the U.S. defense officials who are seeking their cooperation. A U.S. attack against Iran would spark Hezbollah attacks against Israel from Lebanon, as well as a series of attacks by these Shiite operatives against Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain and Iraq — carrying serious repercussions for the global energy market. Qatar, which has followed a much more measured approach in dealing with Iran, was notably not on the list of countries where Shia were being picked up to train in Mugniyah’s camp.
Iran is in the deciding stages regarding how it wants to deal with the United States over Iraq. Its options range from entering into serious negotiations with Washington to sticking to its guns and reaching out to the Russians for some short-term security guarantees. In any case, Iran has no solid guarantees against a U.S. attack and needs a good contingency plan. If Iran is going to be taken down by the United States, it intends to try to bring the Arab neighborhood down with it.
It would be unwise to judge prematurely what is being said in certain meetings. Perhaps the clock is ticking toward a showdown a little faster than many of us think.
October 28th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
“Perhaps the clock is ticking toward a showdown a little faster than many of us think.”
One may hope. God, how I hope.