Israel won’t strike Iran alone, no matter how much it hates the nuclear deal

[oberliner]

The day after a nuclear deal with Iran was announced, the sun rose high above Jerusalem’s shimmering hills just as it does every July, as if the ancient land shrugged off two decades of apocalyptic warnings from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and decided to go about its usual routine.

Israeli officials across the political landscape decried the “very bad deal,” as Netanyahu termed the agreement, which the United States and five world powers hope will curb Iran’s weaponization of its nuclear program. But no one, not even the prime minister, rattled the sabers of war.

“An Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites is no longer a relevant scenario,” wrote Amos Harel, military analyst for the Israeli daily Haaretz.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/07/15/israel-wont-strike-iran-alone-no-matter-how-much-it-hates-the-nuclear-deal/

[gratuitous]

1. Of course they won't

Netanyahu has his crazy base to pander to, and just like he did on the eve of the election, he comes out with whackadoodle nonsense that his constituents lap up like a kitten laps up cream. Netanyahu is acutely aware that the funding for his government is heavily dependent on the good will of bellicose Jews, apocalyptic fundamentalist Christians, and their spineless representatives in Congress.

But for all the bluster, none of them actually takes matters into his own hands. They like their battles and wars fought by proxies, which means the young men marinated in this atmosphere of fear and hatred, then sent out for their two year stints in the Israeli military to stir up more fear and hatred.

[stevenleser]

2. An interesting viewpoint that is not held up by the facts. Israel has struck outside I/P several

times in recent years. Here are four examples just in the last 26 months:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_2013_Rif_Dimashq_airstrikes

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/04/26/israel-airstrike-syria-bomb/26420239/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/21/us-mideast-crisis-lebanon-blast-idUSKBN0P109C20150621

http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Analysis-Hezbollah-unlikely-to-respond-to-Israeli-air-strike-in-Lebanon-343585

[oberliner]

3. Did you not read the article?

The article is about Iran.

The argument being that the US is specifically giving Israel a red light for such an attack, and Israel cannot ignore that because of the importance of their relationship.

Those examples that you gave are from Lebanon and Syria. US has no problem with such attacks.

In fact, the US itself has dropped bombs on Syria recently.

[stevenleser]

7. Of course, but your entire second paragraph doesnt fit the facts in general.

"But for all the bluster, none of them actually takes matters into his own hands. They like their battles and wars fought by proxies, which means the young men marinated in this atmosphere of fear and hatred, then sent out for their two year stints in the Israeli military to stir up more fear and hatred."

[oberliner]

8. That's not my paragraph

That's from a different poster.

[stevenleser]

9. Fair enough. That other posters second paragraph does not fit the facts in general. nt

[geek tragedy]

4. the only 'enemy' Netanyahu is willing to declare war on is Obama.

The Europeans have had enough of the Israeli shrillitude, even if the US is willing to tolerate such childish behavior by the ingrates.

Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Germany’s foreign minister, slammed Netanyahu’s recalcitrance and defended the deal as “responsible.” He said, “Israel should also take a closer look at it and not criticize the agreement in a very coarse way.”

Worse, British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond, who will be in Jerusalem on Thursday, betrayed his lack of sympathy for Netanyahu’s hard line: “The question you have to ask yourself is what kind of a deal would have been welcomed in Tel Aviv. The answer, of course, is that Israel doesn’t want any deal with Iran. Israel wants a permanent state of stand-off, and I don’t believe that’s in the interests of the region.”

The significance of the statement is not principally in its uncommon public expression of exasperation but in the seemingly offhand reference to Israel’s commercial capital. It is almost unheard of for a representative of an Israeli ally to use Tel Aviv as shorthand for the state, which claims Jerusalem as its “eternal, unified capital.”

The offense to Israeli sensibilities on the eve of a state visit is huge.

Now that they've (maybe) begun to turn the corner on Ukraine, Iran, and Greece, the EU will turn to Israel/Palestine, and the Israelis have pretty much burned all their bridges.

[karynnj]

17. I suspect that once the Iranian deal is through all the approvals in the UN and US, the EU will turn

to I/P as you suggest. A week or so ago, there was an article in Haaretz that said that the reason that Fabius, France's FM, stepped back on his resolution to push for another peace process is that US asked him to wait until the Iran deal is politically accomplished. Earlier descriptions of Fabius's resolution suggest that it is very very close to what US policy was on many things -- a big difference I think was it added a timeline.

In addition, here is a very interesting State Department position on BDS IN THE SETTLEMENTS. The Congress added a provision to trade deals that called on the US to not allow partner countries to have BDS actions against Israe AND the Israeli controlled settlements. The State Department, while agreeing on actions against Israel, took issue with including the settlements. (Yes, I know there are some here who favor BDS against Israel, but this is a very strong position given the power of the Israel lobby - and it would not have been issued if Obama did not agree. My guess, the US sees this as inviting a conflict with the EU - and the EU trumps Israel.)

The U.S. State Department on Tuesday punched a big hole in Israel-led efforts to induce the Obama administration to regard boycotts of settlements as identical to boycott of Israel proper. In doing so, it provided the Israeli government and the pro-Israel lobby with yet another painful lesson in the pitfalls of being too clever by half and biting off more than one should chew.

A special statement issued by the State Department Press Office on Tuesday afternoon made clear that while the administration “strongly opposes” any boycott, divestment or sanctions against the State of Israel, it does not extend the same protection to “Israel-controlled territories.” Rather than weakening efforts to boycott Jewish settlements in the occupied territories, as Israel supporters had planned, the State Department was actually granting them unprecedented legitimacy.
<snip>
The State Department statement, however, makes clear that the bill will not change U.S. policy towards the settlements. “The U.S. government has never defended or supported Israeli settlements or activity associated with them, and, by extension, does not pursue policies or activities that would legitimize them,” it said. It went on to note: “Administrations of both parties have long recognized that settlement activity and efforts to change facts on the ground undermine the goal of a two-state solution.”
<snip>
Thus, the effort to strengthen the settlements, supported by AIPAC and other mainstream and right-wing groups and opposed by J-Street and organizations on the left, actually ends up weakening them. The attempt to blot out the differences between a boycott of Israel and of the territories actually highlights them. The boycott of settlements, in effect, has now been officially stamped “kosher” by the State Department.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.663831

[geek tragedy]

18. For the next 16 months, Israel is pretty much all alone except for its

new friends the Saudis and al-Sisi in Egypt.

They're starting to learn what happens when a state stops caring what the rest of the planet thinks.

[karynnj]

20. - and the Republicans in Congress

It is amazing that the Republican leading parts of the media and some in the center actually had the lack of vision to consider that Netanyahu was a stronger, better leader than Obama last March. Even on a personal level, the dishonest mean spirited Netanyahu is not the half the leader that Obama is.

[madville]

5. Logistically without the US

They would have to team up with Saudi Arabia or something and refuel or launch from there, not likely.

Saudi Arabia will likely cash in on the nukes Pakistan owes them as a deterrent when Iran gets some.

[geek tragedy]

6. Not to mention they'd have to go through some combination of Syria, Iraq,

Jordan, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia.

[oberliner]

10. Not true

They could just launch Jericho 3s from Tel Aviv.

[geek tragedy]

11. They can't carry the 15 ton bunker buster

that would be needed to take out an Iranian facility.

[oberliner]

12. They wouldn't need to

They could use the Jericho 3 to detonate an EMP over the country.

In fact, Iran has talked about launching a similar sort of attack on Israel.

[geek tragedy]

13. So, they'd nuke Iran to launch a war of aggression?

tell me again which is the evil regime under that scenario?

[oberliner]

14. You don’t need a nuclear weapon to set off an EMP

You can use a non-nuclear pulse generator.

Iran openly talks about using an EMP to attack Israel.

[geek tragedy]

15. your imagination is getting ahead of your science.

an EMP of any size will be powered via nuke.

that's what's been contemplated between Iran and Israel.

Indeed, the Iranian nuke-induced EMP is one of the scaremongering tactics Israel has been using.

[karynnj]

19. Would you support Israel initiating an attack on Iran?

Would there even have to be an Iranian provocation? I hope that the real decision makers in Israel know that such a move would be immoral, and a disaster for Israel.

[oberliner]

21. Absolutely not

Just explaining how they could do so without having to fly over those countries.

[karynnj]

22. Thanks - the flow of the conversation did not either suggest that or reject it

I would have been stunned had you answered either maybe or under some circumstances.

[karynnj]

16. Note the wording of the military analyst -- and this deal is incredibly significant

“An Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites is no longer a relevant scenario,” wrote Amos Harel, military analyst for the Israeli daily Haaretz.

Let's hope that that is true. If so, it has already achieved what Gary Hart, in his new book, http://www.amazon.com/Restoration-Republic-Jeffersonian-21st-Century-America/dp/0195174283, listed as an important reason for scoring a deal - to eliminate the possibility of another war, possibly started in reaction to Israeli attacks on the sites.