Israeli Strike Deter Not-so-Covert Iran War

Israel's chief of military intelligence was quoted by Agence France-Presse as saying that Iran has enriched enough uranium to build four nuclear devices and its strategic affairs minister warned that no Iranian nuclear facility was immune to attack.

Experts say Tehran is moving its centrifuges and increasing uranium enrichment capacity into an underground bunker in Qom that is not likely to be seriously damaged by bunker-busting bombs.

The Voice of America reported that Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak recently told a conference of military strategic experts in Hertzliya near Tel Aviv that time is running out for an effective military strike, possibly before the end of this year, and the problem must be dealt with soon.

Public opinion surveys show the Israeli public is divided over attacking Iran. In a recent poll, 43% of respondents said they support an attack, while 41% said they oppose it. Nearly two-thirds of the respondents (62 %) said they believe Iran will eventually develop nuclear weapons.

Iran's more bellicose posture and mounting anxiety over real-time intelligence gathering have changed the calculus that would force an unwitting American president to make a gut-wrenching choice between sanctions and military action.

Covert Operation

The targeted assassinations of nuclear scientists, a string of mysterious industrial complex and ballistic missile testing site explosions that killed the architect of Iran's missile program and cyber-attacks - unleash a fury of boring rhetoric from Iran's ruling clerics.

Intelligence officials agree that the huge explosion that destroyed a major missile-testing facility near Tehran was a major setback for Iran's most advanced long-range missile program.

The Department of Defense on Iran Military Threat says "with sufficient foreign assistance, Iran could probably develop and test an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of reaching the United States by 2015."

The Pentagon details the current and future military strategy of Iran has confirmed that the Iranians are in the business of waging a proxy war against America and her allies.

Iran's Supreme leader Ali Khamenei has vowed that the Islamic republic will not give in to international pressure to abandon its nuclear program amid stifling economic sanctions imposed by U.S. and European Union (EU).

Hezbollah as a classic Cold War deterrent

The strategic objective of Iran is destroying the United States, the 'Great Satan' and Israel operationally and rhetorically.

With the imprimatur of the ayatollahs -- Iran's fluid perceptions of being in a perpetually deterrent position with the United States makes it a superpower.

Iran is using Hezbollah as a classic Cold War deterrent whose status is significant as Iran's front-line operative arm against Israel.

Iranian fingerprints are widespread -- from Al-Qaeda in Sudan, 1983 suicide bombing of U.S. embassy in Lebanon, Hezbollah's Mugniyah (who helped bin Laden upgrade al-Qaeda's capabilities in the early 1990s), the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing and Hezbollah-trained Iraqi extremists, who are responsible for the murder of American service members.

The Russian press agency Novosti reported that since Iran did not get the sophisticated S-300 air defense missiles from Russia, it can still have them through its proxy Venezuela and deploy them against its staunchest enemy, the U.S.

According to the German daily, Die Welt, Iran has been stockpiling Shahab-3 missiles that can reach the U.S. in a military base being manned by Iran Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) Qods force and missile officers in Venezuela.

The Iranian Connection

A federal judge in Manhattan has issued a default judgment accusing Iran, Taliban and al-Qaeda of involvement in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

There are disturbing signs that implicate Iran in facilitating travel for the 9/11 hijackers, extensive evidence that Iran aided al-Qaeda's retreat from Afghanistan and has allowed al-Qaeda agents to operate from Iranian soil ever since.

The 9/11 Commission also established that the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania were the work of Hezbollah-trained al-Qaeda operatives.

Ironically, Iran's defense minister, Ahmad Vahidi is wanted by Interpol in connection with the deadly 1994 bombing of a Jewish center in Buenos Aires.

In Thailand, authorities announced arrests that they said had thwarted an Iranian plot against tourist destinations, Israeli and Jewish targets in Bangkok.

For the first time last year, the Obama Administration publicly accused Iran of trying to launch an attack on U.S. soil using Mexican drug cartel and then did nothing about it in a plot to murder Saudi Arabia's ambassador in Washington.

Iran's asymmetric and unconventional warfare through proxies over the last three decades makes it complicit -- the de facto purveyor of worldwide terrorism.

The reluctance of the Obama Administration to confront Iran as the leading state sponsor of global terrorism is mindboggling and raises more questions on a vital front in our war against radical Islam.

Why the U.S. might attack Iran

A controversial forecast of 'unintended consequences' by the hopelessly naive Obama Administration against U.S. military strike intended to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons program is based on a faulty assumption.

Consistently employing a worst-case analysis also assumes that rejecting the war option will force the United States to endlessly deal with dangerously evolving threats from Iran for decades.

Interference against any suspicion that it may be politically motivated, the Obama White House has no desire to start a new and provocative bolt-from-the-blue attack before November's presidential election.

A strike on Iran, Obama argued would lead to a sharp rise in oil prices that could seriously harm the U.S. economy thereby jeopardizing his chances for re-election.

Obama's persistent hesitation to act has been exploited to Iran's advantage. Conveying conflicting messages for that matter- lack of prudence, clear strategic thinking, and statesmanship, Israel cannot depend on the Obama Administration to guarantee its security.

Israel's preventive war is a necessary evil. Obama's denial and policy of appeasement towards Iran is dangerous diplomacy. Inaction and western complacency will be tragic to Israel's survival and endanger our national security.

American involvement in the war is predicated on Iran raising a false flag terror event -- attacking U.S. interests in the Middle East and closing the Strait of Hormuz. Once attacked, America has no choice but to relentlessly end Iran's nuclear ambition and its regime.

Israel's right to defend itself is non-negotiable. A nuclear-armed Iran poses an existential threat to Israel, a dangerous proliferation of nuclear weapons and will destabilize the oil market as Iran could dictate prices to end the free flow of oil from the Gulf.

For an Israeli campaign to be successful, it must be quick, decisive and overwhelming with minimum collateral damages.

A stunningly broad-based air and sea campaign devoid of ground troops and targeted specifically against Iran's nuclear facilities, political and military infrastructures would decimate IRGC's ability to respond in full force.

In the short term, an Israeli attack would significantly set back Iran's nuclear program, but not when U.S. forces with three to five U.S. nuclear-armed aircraft carriers destroy all nuclear facilities altogether.

The result would be catastrophic to the Iranian regime, ultimately imploding it from within.

An Israeli strike supported by America would spare the volatile Middle East and the world a very real threat and dramatically improve the long-term national security of the United States.

The Obama Administration cannot hope to resolve this vital issue by continuing to pretend that Iran does not play a major role in the terrorists' ongoing war against America.

Like it or not, the political backlash for not backing Israel would be tremendous.

In the end, whether we go to war with Iran or not, the United States is going to remain committed to defending its interests in the Middle East and beyond.

Source: Department of Defense