Study: U.S., Israel should begin planning Iran strike

The title of the think tank's report, "Speaking About the Unspeakable," says it all. It's as if right wing think tank's are themselves commenting on how insane their own plans are. However, as usual, the more insane the plan, the more "courageous" right wing loons feel they are being when they call for actions that any sensible person can see - at first glance - as an act of madness.

Israel and the United States should begin an intense dialogue on ways to deal with Iran's nuclear plans and should examine ways to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, according to a new study published by an influential Washington think tank.

The report, by a former deputy head of the National Security Council, Chuck Freilich, says Israel and the U.S. should discuss nuclear-crisis scenarios between Israel and Iran.

In the report Freilich assumes that detailed talks between the US and Israel do not extend beyond "exchanges of intelligence, coordination of diplomatic moves and the supply of sophisticated weapons to Israel". This implies that Israel and the US do not have plans for attacking Iran's nuclear facilities already, which I find simply fantastical.

The recent dry run over Syria was surely proof that plans exist for an attack on Iran. This report also ignores the fact that Seymour Hersh has already reported that the Bush administration has "intensified planning for a possible major air attack."

He then moves into fantasy land:

Freilich says Israel would prefer that the U.S. attack Iran. He notes that if Israel believes it can successfully attack Iran, Israel fears that the U.S. would veto the plan, so Israel would not unveil the scheme ahead of time. The U.S. would also keep secret from Israel any intention of attacking Iran.

The notion that the Cheney/Bush White House would move to prevent Israel from attacking Iran, or that the US would keep plans to attack the nuclear facilities of one of Israel's neighbours secret from Israel herself, implies that the most pro-Israeli White House ever doesn't consult with one of it's major allies; something which I can't be alone in finding simply unbelievable.

For instance, Dick Cheney is already quoted as saying that Iran was:

"right at the top of the list" of the rogue enemies of America, and that Israel would, so to speak, "be doing the bombing for us", without US military involvement and without us putting pressure on them "to do it."

Indeed Bush, before a recent meeting with Olmert, blatantly stated that Iran was what they would be discussing:

President Bush hinted that actions against Iran will form the core of their discussion.

"I'm sure that we will find some time, also, to discuss other measures, such as the danger of Iran and the threats that come from the President of Iran, who talks time and again about the liquidation of the state of Israel, something that is totally intolerable and unacceptable," he said. "And we have to continue the measures taken in order to stop the Iranian efforts to establish unconventional weapons."

Talking to reporters at a joint press conference Bush once again re-iterated his position on military strikes against Iran by saying "I will tell you this, that my position hasn't changed, and that is all options are on the table."

"And I fully understand the concerns of any Israeli when they hear the voice of the man in Iran saying, on the one hand, we want to acquire the technologies and know-how to build a -- enrich uranium, which could then be converted into a nuclear weapon, and on the other hand, we want to destroy Israel," he added. "Look, if I were an Israeli citizen I would view that as a serious threat to my security. And as a strong ally of Israel, I view that as a serious threat to its security -- not only the security of Israel, but the security of the Middle East."

So the whole notion behind this report, that Israel and the US have no joint plans to deal with Iran, is simply nonsensical.

What the report does do, apart from portraying the US and Israel as reluctant to discuss the notion of attacking Iran, is once again float the notion that Iran must be attacked.

It's a familiar right wing refrain from yet another "influential Washington think tank" ignoring the fact that there is simply no popular support amongst Americans for any attack on Iran:

This desire for diplomacy is particularly apparent in public attitudes on the spread of nuclear weapons. As far as the vast majority of Americans are concerned, military force is "off the table" in dealing with Iran's nuclear program and its possible meddling in Iraq. There's also been a sharp drop in public confidence in military force as a tool for dealing with other countries developing weapons of mass destruction—even though controlling the spread of nuclear weapons is the public's top policy priority and one of its major fears.

But, as always, the wishes of most Americans are swept aside as irrelevant by the people who brought us the Glorious War in Iraq and the steady drumbeat for action against Iran continues.

It's simply tiresome.

Click title for full article.

Tags: Bush, Olmert, United States, Israel, plans to attack Iran, Freilich