Iran & U.S. Pressure to Back Two - State Solution

[Cees Binkhorst]

REPLY TO: D66 at nic.surfnet.nl

> AIPAC wordt nu echt nerveus:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/06/us-israel-palestinians-
> middle-east
>
> Groeten, Mark Giebels

Ja, ze zitten tussen een steen en ...

Israel voert zelf ook de spanning op, zoals met onderstaand bericht (dat
komt immers niet uit de duim van een Reuters correspondent).

Mochten ze toch Iran aanvallen dan geeft dat volgens mij een excuus aan de
Russen om die Sam-3 raketten te leveren.
Elke individuele raket kan tientallen doelen tegelijk volgen binnen een
verdedigingsnetwerk. Een eenmaal afgevuurde raket gaat geheid naar het
gekozen doel en dat doel wordt automatisch geschrapt binnen het netwerk.

En daarmee zou het de laatste aanval van Israel zijn. Tenzij ze natuurlijk
vliegtuigen te veel hebben.
Én Rusland zit daarna in het zadel in het MO!

Groet / Cees

PS. De USA heeft een radarinstallatie in de Negev (met dank aan minister
Barak tijdens vorige regering) die binnen 2200km straal elke grote vogel
ziet, laat staan een of meer drones of vliegtuigen. Dus absoluut niet
nodig om USA te informeren, die weten het binnen een paar seconden.
Installatie is off-limits voor niet-Amerikanen.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE54523R20090506
Israel would inform, not ask U.S. before hitting Iran
Wed May 6, 2009 5:34am EDT

By Dan Williams - Analysis

TEL AVIV (Reuters) - When he first got word of Israel's sneak attack on
the Iraqi atomic reactor in 1981, U.S. President Ronald Reagan privately
shrugged it off, telling his national security adviser: "Boys will be
boys!"

Would Barack Obama be so sanguine if today's Israelis made good on years
of threats and bombed Iran's nuclear facilities, yanking the United States
into an unprecedented Middle East eruption that could dash his goal of
easing regional tensions through revived and redoubled U.S. outreach?

For that matter, would Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu readily
take on Iran alone, given his country's limited firepower and the risk of
stirring up a backlash against the Jewish state among war-weary,
budget-strapped Americans?

Obama is no Reagan. And many experts believe the two allies are now so
enmeshed in strategic ties -- with dialogue at the highest level of
government and military -- that complete Israeli autonomy on a major issue
like Iran is notional only.

So while no one questions Israel's willingness to attack should it deem
U.S.-led talks on curbing Iranian uranium enrichment a dead end, such
strikes would almost certainly entail at least last-minute coordination
with Washington.

Israel would want to ensure that its jets would not be shot down by
accident if overflying U.S.-occupied Iraq, and to give Americans in the
Gulf forewarning of possible Iranian reprisals.

"Whether or not Israel got the green light from Washington to attack Iran
is almost immaterial, as everybody in the region would believe that the
U.S. was complicit," said Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace.

One U.S. diplomat envisaged Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak
telephoning Pentagon chief Robert Gates, unannounced, "to give a heads-up
and explain" once the mission were under way.

Gates and the U.S. military brass have voiced distaste for pre-emptive
strikes on Iran, which says its uranium enrichment is for legitimate
electricity production, not weapons. But their public comments have
acknowledged that Israel could break rank.

"I do not doubt that Israel will do what it thinks it needs to do,
regardless of whether the U.S. approves," said Mark Fitzpatrick,
non-proliferation expert at the International Institute for Strategic
Studies in London.

"Israel would seek forgiveness, not permission."

A retired Israeli general who advises the government on strategic issues
suggested there was a tacit synchronicity in recent messages about Iran
from Israel and the United States:

"The Israeli threat adds urgency to Obama's calls for diplomatic
engagement, and should Israel take things into its hands, the Americans
retain wriggle room, some deniability."

SYRIAN PRECEDENT

Israel's bombing in 2007 of what the CIA described as a North Korean-built
reactor in Syria may provide a precedent.

According to a source familiar with the operation, Israel carried out the
sortie alone, but only after "letting the Americans know that something
like this could happen. It's the difference between informing, and seeking
consent."

It was the United States which, a year later, published the allegations
about the bombed site, pitting its clout as a superpower against Syrian
denials. Israel, which has never discussed the attack, was spared the
burden of proving its case.

As both Obama and Netanyahu head new governments, the Israeli former
general said any joint strategy would go unformed at least until the
leaders held their first summit on May 18.

"There's a sense that no decision has been made on either side," he said.
"My impression is that the current American statements are for the record,
to convince the international community about the seriousness of the Obama
administration's efforts to talk Tehran into a solution."

Regardless of Obama's eventual stance, it would be severely tested should
U.S. interests be threatened -- say, with Iran answering an Israeli
bombing by goading Shi'ites in Iraq to stoke the embers of their
insurgency, or by choking off oil exports.

"Whatever temporary sense of solidarity with Israel that ensued would be
through gritted teeth," said Fitzpatrick, a former U.S. State Department
official.

Then again, drawing in the United States, with its superior air power,
could serve Israel's endgame of putting paid to Iran's nuclear facilities.
Most analysts think Israel's warplanes might set back Iran's plans by a
few years at best and could never erase the knowledge of Iran's atomic
scientists.

After reacting to the 1981 Iraq strike by saying -- according to
then-National Security Adviser Richard Allen -- "You know what, Dick? Boys
will be boys!," Reagan rapped Israel by holding up a shipment of F-16
jets.

Future U.S. administrations would thank the Israelis for denting the might
of Saddam Hussein -- whom the Reagan White House backed against Iran at
the time.

Fitzpatrick said U.S. public opinion would swing in Israel's favor "if
Iran is stopped from achieving a nuclear weapons capability, and the price
is not too great in terms of attacks on American citizens and facilities."

Obama's punitive options could, in theory, include cutting the billions in
U.S. defense aid and loan guarantees to Israel, though he would face
opposition in an Israel-friendly Congress.

Washington could also call for a nuclear-free Middle East as part of a
regional peace drive, arguing that, with Iran neutralized and the Arab
world mollified, Israel's own assumed atomic arsenal should no longer go
unchecked.

**********
Dit bericht is verzonden via de informele D66 discussielijst (D66 at nic.surfnet.nl).
Aanmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SUBSCRIBE D66 uwvoornaam uwachternaam
Afmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SIGNOFF D66
Het on-line archief is te vinden op: http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/d66.html
**********