"Leaking" on attacking Iran
Judge this for what it is (somebody wants it out there,) but I found it thought provoking.
There's a lot of "leak" politics going on with Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi making a round of meetings in Washington.
(Here's the Time magazine article.)
Another former senior Mossad official, who reportedly served during Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's administration, told the American magazine (Time) that "Iran's achievement is creating an image of itself as a scary superpower when it's really a paper tiger."An additional Israeli source told Time that Israel sees the period between the U.S. elections in November and the president's inauguration in January as the "window of opportunity" for a possible attack on Iran.
The source explained that any military move against Iran would not be carried out before the elections, because it would negatively impact the presidential candidates, especially Republican candidate John McCain and "No Israel leader wants to be blamed for destroying the Republican chances," Time cited the source as saying.
However, the magazine quoted intelligence sources as saying that an Israeli attack on Iran would likely stall the Islamic republic's nuclear aspirations only by "a year or two."
Launching a long-range strike against a multitude of hidden targets in Iran entails huge risks and uncertain rewards, which makes the cost-benefit analysis weigh against an air strike on Iran, according to some senior Israeli officials who urge caution.
There's a lot of "leak" politics going on with Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi making a round of meetings in Washington.
(Here's the Time magazine article.)
posted by mikevotes at
6:48 AM
2 Comments:
Launching a long-range strike against a multitude of hidden targets in Iran entails huge risks and uncertain rewards, which makes the cost-benefit analysis weigh against an air strike on Iran, according to some senior Israeli officials who urge caution.
It's refreshing to hear this from Israel, even if it is un-sourced.
If any American military/intelligence figure were to say these things, they would be called a traitor, a coward, and accused of not supporting the military and "wanting to lose".
Pondering military action should be one of the most sober discussions there are, and based on reason and reality. Instead, all of that seems to be thrown out the window by people who seem to think they are cheering for a football team.
Somewhere along the line, chanting "USA! USA!" has become 'military policy analysis'. It's a bit weird when Israel has become 'the voice of reason', but they are exactly right. The air war scenario is a long shot with little payoff, and with absolutely no prospect for long-term resolution. We bomb and the same people are in power, following the same agenda, only now forced into a corner. Bloody brilliant. What could possibly go wrong?
By
Todd Dugdale , at 2:21 PM
Well, I see this as strategic political leaking. This is some faction putting out points trying to shape the debate in both the US and Israel, just like the other side pumped the Syria nuclear reactor story through their neocon affiliates.
This isn't so much a policy position as one faction trying to push their viewpoint.
(And to the negative, generally the faction pushing into the press feels it's losing the argument or would at least benefit from outside pressure.)
But to the broader point, yeah, that's why I included that paragraph. It's a little off the topic I was making, but I liked reading what it said.
By
mikevotes, at 4:20 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home