Can America Dispel Israel’s Intentions to Go to War?
Published in Nanfang Daily
(China) on 7 February 2012
by Ran Wei (link to original)
(China) on 7 February 2012
by Ran Wei (link to original)
Translated from
by Nathan Hsu.
Edited by Gillian Palmer.
On the 5th of this month, U.S. President Obama expressed his belief that Israel has not yet fully resolved to launch a military assault on Iran to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons, and America still strives to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomatic means.
Analysts believe that the statement by Obama was [meant to] cool off the currently tense situation in the Persian Gulf, as well as to make known to all parties that a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear issue is still possible, while military action is not [America's] first choice. On the other hand, whether or not America can ultimately dispel Israel's desire for military action remains hard to predict.
Military Action Is Not America's Best Option
U.S. analysts generally believe that for the Obama administration, which is just now in the sensitive phase of an election year, launching a preemptive military assault on Iran is currently not the best option.
First, just as former U.S. National Security Advisor [Zbigniew] Brzezinski expressed to the media a few days ago, as soon as the U.S. and Iran go to war, how long the war continues will not be up to the U.S. to decide, as Iran will be able to drag it out. Clearly, the Obama administration, which is using every available means to distance itself from the morass of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and faces enormous pressure to reduce the budget at the same time, does not currently wish to get caught up in another war.
Furthermore, the recommendations which Obama has received from the Pentagon in the three years since his election have all strongly opposed carrying out a military assault on Iran. His two Defense Secretaries, [Robert] Gates and [Leon] Panetta, both explicitly stated that going to war with Iran would be unwise. In December of last year, Panetta also said that the only benefit that could be gained from a military strike on Iran would be to delay Iran's nuclear plans by a year or two at most, while the drawbacks would be far greater.
[Bruce] Riedel, an expert on the Iranian issue at America's Brookings Institution, said that there are many different means by which Iran could retaliate, [with those means] hardly limited to closing the Strait of Hormuz, and the U.S. would more than likely be unable to prevent them. Iran could carry out reprisals against American targets in the Gulf states, Iraq, Afghanistan and other areas and could even launch missiles to strike oil refineries in Gulf states, making world oil prices skyrocket.
Israel Strongly Desires Military Action
Despite [the fact that] the U.S. currently does not wish to attack Iran, Israel sees Iran as “a threat to its existence,” and has expressed a rather strong desire to take independent military action against Iran's nuclear installations.
On Feb. 2, [Israeli Defense Minister Ehud] Barak said that after Iran shifts their uranium enrichment facilities into newly constructed underground bunkers, the window of opportunity for stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons will close, and that “those who say 'later' may find that later is too late.” [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/02/iran-israel-ehud-barak-strike]
International experts believe that at present, the U.S. and Israel's differences are growing larger on the question of whether or not to take military action against Iran. The Washington Post reported on Feb. 2 that U.S. officials have held private discussions with their Israeli counterparts in recent weeks in a bid to persuade Israel to remain patient, as well to attempt to prove that the present sanctions against Iran are starting to show results. However, Israel indicated that if nuclear negotiations with Iran do not move forward in the next few months, Israel will very likely independently attack Iran.
Analysts believe that the statement by Obama was [meant to] cool off the currently tense situation in the Persian Gulf, as well as to make known to all parties that a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear issue is still possible, while military action is not [America's] first choice. On the other hand, whether or not America can ultimately dispel Israel's desire for military action remains hard to predict.
Military Action Is Not America's Best Option
U.S. analysts generally believe that for the Obama administration, which is just now in the sensitive phase of an election year, launching a preemptive military assault on Iran is currently not the best option.
First, just as former U.S. National Security Advisor [Zbigniew] Brzezinski expressed to the media a few days ago, as soon as the U.S. and Iran go to war, how long the war continues will not be up to the U.S. to decide, as Iran will be able to drag it out. Clearly, the Obama administration, which is using every available means to distance itself from the morass of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and faces enormous pressure to reduce the budget at the same time, does not currently wish to get caught up in another war.
Furthermore, the recommendations which Obama has received from the Pentagon in the three years since his election have all strongly opposed carrying out a military assault on Iran. His two Defense Secretaries, [Robert] Gates and [Leon] Panetta, both explicitly stated that going to war with Iran would be unwise. In December of last year, Panetta also said that the only benefit that could be gained from a military strike on Iran would be to delay Iran's nuclear plans by a year or two at most, while the drawbacks would be far greater.
[Bruce] Riedel, an expert on the Iranian issue at America's Brookings Institution, said that there are many different means by which Iran could retaliate, [with those means] hardly limited to closing the Strait of Hormuz, and the U.S. would more than likely be unable to prevent them. Iran could carry out reprisals against American targets in the Gulf states, Iraq, Afghanistan and other areas and could even launch missiles to strike oil refineries in Gulf states, making world oil prices skyrocket.
Israel Strongly Desires Military Action
Despite [the fact that] the U.S. currently does not wish to attack Iran, Israel sees Iran as “a threat to its existence,” and has expressed a rather strong desire to take independent military action against Iran's nuclear installations.
On Feb. 2, [Israeli Defense Minister Ehud] Barak said that after Iran shifts their uranium enrichment facilities into newly constructed underground bunkers, the window of opportunity for stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons will close, and that “those who say 'later' may find that later is too late.” [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/02/iran-israel-ehud-barak-strike]
International experts believe that at present, the U.S. and Israel's differences are growing larger on the question of whether or not to take military action against Iran. The Washington Post reported on Feb. 2 that U.S. officials have held private discussions with their Israeli counterparts in recent weeks in a bid to persuade Israel to remain patient, as well to attempt to prove that the present sanctions against Iran are starting to show results. However, Israel indicated that if nuclear negotiations with Iran do not move forward in the next few months, Israel will very likely independently attack Iran.
Next article![]( "Washington and the Military Council Together against Egypt’s Revolution")
