Necessary Steps for Israel
Confronting State Sponsors of Terror Is the Only Option
By Michael Oren
Friday, July 14, 2006; A21JERUSALEM -- For the first time since the Yom Kippur War in 1973, Israel is facing hostilities on two fronts. The exceedingly volatile situation is liable to embroil other Middle Eastern states, culminating in a regional conflict similar to that of the 1967 Six-Day War.
Bullshit. Israel is attacking on two fronts. Their attack on and disinformation about Fatah and Hamas didn't stick. This is the next move.
Their threat to assasinate the Palestinian Prime Minister over these two soldiers was not only unprecidented it was proof Israel does not give a good goddamn.
But this is a necessary step. Without U.S. support, Israel would last as long as a wading pool in the Sahara, and U.S. support is getting real thin. After our own misadventures in Iraq we are overextended, short supplied and so disliked it will be a long, long time before we get military support from anyone but Israel. Add to that the FACT that we are in withdrawal mode in Iraq and Israel has to see their vulnerability was about to increase exponentially.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Newsvine
Furl
Google
Yahoo
There Are a Number of Issus that Require
Separation.
Not every nation can be attacked the same way. It seems obvious, but the issue merits being stated formally. Some nations are susceptible to invasion. Some US/Israel objectives may be achieved through clandestine operations. Some can only be achieved through sanctions. Still others may require modified military approaches (the US has discussed a tactical nuclear bombing of Iran).
So, the US need for military support will vary. There are a range of tactical options that will remain open regardless of the challenge. What are the US options with respect to North Korea? What type of military support would the US require? Tactical - intelligence - staging (as in Saudi Arabia during Persian Gulf 1991) - or some other type?
I'm laying this out in this manner because the inducement for the international community to support the US is still financial. Western nations with the requisite military resources to offer meaningful support can generally be relied upon for support for several reasons. Not the least of these reasons is the effective financial power of the US government (as the sole printer of US currency) and US-based multinationals to extract favorable terms while offering remuneration to those nations.
Where would the US stage in order to attack Iran? Iraq? Not so stable, but probable. Afghanistan? Less stable, but also possible. India? Nope. Syria? Nope. Russia and the little -stans? Nope. I can't speak for Pakistani fire power or anyone else's, but the Us is going to need a much better argument than NUCLEAR ARMS (India?) to halt Muslim nations from drawing down if they try to invade Iran. "Tactical nuclear bombing" might be the "best" option.
It's fairly complex - and will only become more complicated if the Iranians are ever able to open their oil bourse.