Must Listen

Must Read

What Art Thinks

Pre-Millennialism

Today's Headlines

  • Sorry... Not Available
Man blowing a shofar

Administrative Area





Locally Contributed...

Audio

Video

Special Interest

Home » Site Index » Daily News
Daily News
6860
“Should Israel attack distracted Iran now?”
by WND - Aaron Klein   
June 25th, 2009

JERUSALEM – With the Tehran regime distracted by growing opposition protests, is now a good time for Israel to strike Iran's nuclear sites?

Iran is defying the international community and thumbing its nose at President Obama's proposed dialogue over the nuclear issue. Israeli intelligence is warning it could be a matter of months – not years – before Iran has enough uranium that, if enriched more, could produce one or two nuclear devices. With time swiftly running out, should Israel use the opportunity of the current drama in Iran to attack the country with the goal of setting back its nuclear program?

Here are a few pros and cons of an Israeli strike on Iran during opposition protests there:

  • Pro: The possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities has so thoroughly penetrated the news cycle and international political discourse the past few years, it's probably the most talked about "secret" military strike in recent history. That coupled with the massive operation required to hit Iran's dozen or so nuke sites, some underground, makes a surprise Israeli raid on Iran a near impossibility, much unlike the Jewish state's strikes in 2007 against Syria's lone nascent reactor or its surprise raid of Iraq's singular plant in 1981. With Iran focused on quelling the opposition protests, now may be a good time to take that regime by surprise.
  • Pro: Iran's Revolutionary Guards as well as the country's police and other security forces, like the Basij plainclothes militia, are so involved in quelling street protests they may not be ready militarily to immediately respond to an Israeli military raid.

    Surely, Iran's nuclear sites are still well protected. Iran has built a dense aerial-defense system that will make it difficult at just about any time for Israeli planes to reach their targets without encountering some resistance. Some layers of resistance Israel can expect will come from the batteries of Hawk, SA-5 and SA-2 surface-to-air missiles, plus SA-7, SA-15, Rapier, Crotale and Stinger anti-aircraft missiles protecting the sites.

    But those stations are manned by the same units whose leadership now is involved in fighting the opposition protests. Iran also has about 1,700 anti-aircraft guns protecting the nuclear facilities in addition to 158 combat aircraft that would need to be deployed by the currently bogged-down Revolutionary Guard commanders.

  • Pro: For Israel, the sooner an attack occurs, the better. Every day Iran is not confronted provides Tehran another 24 hours with which its nuclear scientists can work to furiously assemble the ingredients necessary for a nuclear weapon.

  • Con: An Israeli airstrike would surely bring the opposition protests to a screeching halt and likely would be used by the ruling mullahs to unite the country against Israel. As it stands, the riots in Iran overtly oppose the recent election results but are not openly protesting the country's Islamic theocratic dictators, specifically the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Still, there are anti-ayatollah undertones. All this would end as soon as the first Israeli missile reaches its target, allowing President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to solidify his rule under a national emergency scenario and granting a blank check to Khamenei.

    Israel, however, does need to weigh this con against its belief that opposition leader Mir-Hossein Mousavi is not much different ideologically from Ahmadinejad. Mousavi was prime minister from 1981 to 1989 – after the Islamic revolution. During Mousavi's term, his country exported terrorism worldwide and started the initial foundations of what became the Iranian nuclear program.

  • Con: President Obama's administration would likely be furious at Israel and could retaliate diplomatically. Obama has been touting his policy of direct negotiations as the solution to Iran's nuclear ambitions. Obama wants the opportunity to test his engagement strategy. If Israel strikes before Obama's opening talks, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could expect a very upset White House.

    Still, it seems Obama is unlikely to support an Israeli strike at any time in the near future. Israel may want to cut its losses and at least attack during a time it would have some element of surprise. Also, Israeli officials are quietly nervous Obama's diplomacy could be dragged on for a long period, granting the Iranians a much-needed smokescreen to put together nuclear weapons.

  • Con: International condemnation. The world community, particularly Britain, which seems heavily invested in the opposition protests, will blame Israel for putting an end to any hopes of "reform" in Iran, even if opposition leaders are not exactly real reformists. International condemnation could take the form of boycotts of the Jewish state; anti-Israel U.N. resolutions, etc. Israel, however, needs to weigh all this against the likelihood of condemnation sure to come its way whenever Israel carried out an attack against Iran, whether now or in years to come.
    • go back button