[DPA, Washington, February 2] An unnamed U.S. defense official told a CNN reporter today that Israel may attack Iran this spring to prevent Tehran from building nuclear weapons.
The official understood Defense Secretary Panetta's perspective. Panetta believes Israel could take action this spring before Tehran advances its nuclear program further. The "Washington Post" reported that Panetta believes that before Tehran builds nuclear weapons and stores uranium in underground facilities out of Israel's reach, there is a "high possibility" that Israel will launch an attack from April to June this year. Israel is said to be considering launching a limited attack on the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz and other targets.
[British "Daily Telegraph" website reported on February 2] A former senior White House adviser said that Israel may launch a military strike against Iran within nine months to delay Tehran's pace of building nuclear weapons.
Senior diplomat Dennis Ross said that although Israel-US relations have always been very close, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu may not be restrained by Obama's opposition. Ross told reporters: "Israel believes that the Iranian threat is real. If Israel feels that this is a real threat, no matter what anyone says to them, it will not work. They may take unilateral action. They are talking about 9 to 12 months." [British "Financial Times" website reported on February 2] Israel's defense minister warned today that Iran's nuclear program may soon become immune to military strikes. The remarks indicate that Israeli leaders believe the window for a peaceful solution to the Iranian problem is rapidly closing. Barak said: "The whole world now has no doubt that Iran's military nuclear program is slowly but surely moving towards its final stage and will enter an immunity phase. In this stage, the Iranian regime can calmly complete its nuclear program without any effective interference." The remarks highlighted Israel's growing unease that Iran is moving some important components of its nuclear program into facilities deep underground, where air strikes will become increasingly difficult to destroy them.
Barak called for urgent measures, "Dealing with a nuclear Iran is far more complicated, far more dangerous, far more bloody and expensive than trying to stop it today. In other words, those who say 'later...' may find it is too late." The defense minister emphasized: "If sanctions do not achieve the desired goal of stopping Iran from pursuing its nuclear program, other actions must be considered." "
[Saudi Arabia's "Al-Hayat" reported on February 3] Israeli Military Intelligence Director Aviv Kohawi said yesterday that Iran has enough enriched uranium to make four nuclear bombs and can build one within a year.
He said that international intelligence agencies and Israel agree that Iran has collected more than 4 tons of enriched uranium with a concentration of 3.5% and about 100 nuclear bombs. Kilograms of 20% enriched uranium are enough to make four nuclear bombs. "Iran has always claimed that its nuclear program is for civilian purposes, but we have conclusive evidence and materials that prove that Iran is developing nuclear weapons."
The West is worried that military actions are counterproductive
[Associated Press, Washington, February 2] Israel's main Western allies are trying to persuade it not to launch unilateral military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities on the grounds that military strikes will only strengthen Tehran's regime rather than weaken it.
Although Washington has largely concluded that external factors have little influence on Israel's decision-making, the United States is still taking the lead in persuading Israel. Column. The United States and its allies hope to prevent Israel from launching strikes at least until the latest round of sanctions on Iran's oil sector takes effect later this year.
[US "Washington Post" website reported on February 2] Title: Israel's threats of possible strikes against Iran have worried U.S. officials. The leader of Israel issued the most outspoken warning yet that it may launch air strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. This has made the West worried that a sudden attack by Israel may trigger a wider military conflict in the Middle East.
While agreeing on the seriousness of the Iranian threat, U.S. officials remain concerned that a surprise Israeli strike could have wide-ranging economic and security implications and might only delay, rather than end, Iran's nuclear program.
White House officials are also concerned that a unilateral strike against Iran could unravel the international coalition built over the past three years to pressure Iran to give up its nuclear weapons. U.S. officials fear that an Israeli strike would prompt Iran to retaliate not only against the Jewish state but also against U.S. interests around the world, and a protracted conflict could disrupt oil exports, push up energy prices, and wreak havoc on already fragile Western economies.
[Report on the website of the Washington Post on February 2] US President Obama and Defense Secretary Panetta are said to have warned the Israelis that the United States opposes attacking Iran, believing that it will undermine the gradually successful international sanctions plan and other non-military efforts to prevent Iran from crossing the nuclear threshold. But the White House has yet to make a clear decision on how the United States will respond if Israel launches an attack.
The Obama administration is intensely debating the impact of an Israeli attack on the United States: whether Iran would target U.S. ships in the region or attempt to block the Strait of Hormuz, and what impact a war and a possible spike in oil prices would have on the fragile global economy. The Obama administration appears to advocate staying out of the war unless Iran attacks U.S. assets.
[Associated Press, London, February 2] British Deputy Prime Minister Clegg said today that he is worried that Iran's controversial nuclear program may trigger a military conflict between the West and Iran.
The British "House of Commons Magazine" quoted Clegg as saying that he was worried that Israel might launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran amid Western suspicions that Tehran was secretly developing nuclear weapons. Clegg said: "I am worried about the possibility of military conflict and that some countries may try to take matters into their own hands." He said that the UK has been trying to prove that "we can take very tough but not military measures to put pressure on Iran."
The war will intensify the "political earthquake" in the Middle East
[Russian News Agency, Moscow, February 2] Alexander Skakov, an expert from the Russian Academy of Sciences, believes that the war against Iran will start one month after the fall of the Bashar regime in Syria.
Skakov said: "We will not launch aggression against Iran until the situation in Syria is resolved as hoped by the West, the United States and Turkey. Only after the fall of the Bashar regime can we say that war will be launched against Iraq in a month or a few weeks."
Experts believe that any military action against Iran will have an impact on the stability of countries in the region.
[February 2 article on the website of the US "Los Angeles Times"] Title: Israel's choice on the Iran issue is of far-reaching significance
Even assuming that Israel's attack on Iran is successful, it will have potentially terrible consequences. Iran already has the technology to make nuclear bombs, and a strike will only set back Iran's nuclear program by a few years. The strike itself is useful, but it cannot be done once and for all.
In addition, according to Israeli estimates, Iran has hundreds of "Meteor" missiles that can hit Israel. Moreover, Iran and Syria have provided Hezbollah with more than 50,000 rockets specially designed for this situation. These rockets fired from Lebanon could overwhelm all of Israel.
In addition, the destabilization of the Egyptian and Syrian regimes after the "Arab Spring" has greatly increased the possibility that the two countries will be dragged into this conflict. Syria may hope to deflect the pressure of domestic unrest by focusing public attention on foreign enemies. And Egypt's new Islamist government is reluctant to make peace with Israel even under the best of circumstances. Outbursts of anger on the streets in Egypt and other Arab countries may force Egypt to take action.
There is no doubt that the international community will react strongly to Israel's actions, and in some cases even impose sanctions. The Obama administration has made it clear that although U.S. measures have failed to address the Iranian threat, it is firmly opposed to military action.Israel has been enduring accusations from the international community before, but it cannot afford an overly harsh response from its main ally, the United States, because after a military strike against Iran, Israel will be even more dependent on the United States.
[Spanish "El Pais" article on February 2] What can Israel gain by striking Iran preemptively? This is the most difficult question to answer with certainty. The Iranians may seek to close the Strait of Hormuz, launch missile attacks on Israel or launch terrorist attacks around the world. But oil prices will certainly be affected.
While there are great doubts about the immediate effect of an attack on Iran, greater uncertainty arises from the impact such a move will have on the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East, which is undergoing a political earthquake. Israel is at a crossroads that determines its future destiny, facing unprecedented international isolation. The direction of the situation in Egypt is also unresolved. The Egypt-Israel Camp David peace agreement may collapse or be modified. Relations between Jordan and Israel may also deteriorate further.
