Jeffrey Goldberg's piece in The Atlantic magazine entitled "The Point of No Return" argues that, for Israel, said point has already been reached in its relations with Iran. He warns that "if things remain on the current course, an Israeli air strike will unfold."
Whether or not the Israelis would indeed succeed in taking out significant parts of the Iran nuclear program is not even the main point, but rather the dire consequences that such a development would undoubtedly have in the region. A full-fledged war in the Middle East would moreover entail sky-rocketing oil prices and undermine the world economy that is barely recovering from the financial crisis.
Irrespective of this, things may come to a head soon, as both US and Israeli sources fear that Iran is no more than one year away from developing weapons-grade material. Goldberg maintains that "President Obama has by no means ruled out counterproliferation by force." Israel has the option of launching a one-strike sortie against the Iranian nuclear facilities, if the Saudis cooperate. After interviewing government officials over several months, Goldberg is now convinced that "the administration knows it is a near-certainty that Israel will act against Iran soon if nothing or no one else stops the nuclear program."
However, Josef Joffe believes that such an apocalyptical scenario is unlikely given the fact that, despite their differences, the leadership of Israel and Iran can be assumed to behave as rational actors on the world stage. Joffe replies with a resounding "no" to the question he put in the title of his Die Zeit article: "Israel to go it alone against Iran?" ("Israel im Alleingang gegen Iran?") The Israelis simply cannot afford to launch an airstrike without the implicit support of the Americans, who are already bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq and are exceedingly weary of any further military engagement. While neither Washington nor Tel Aviv finds a nuclear armed Iran acceptable, they have no choice but to resort to options short of war in their attempts to contain Tehran. And in spite of all the rhetoric, the Iranian President is unlikely to provoke them to such a degree that a military confrontation will prove inevitable.
We would like to ask our readers to contribute their insights into this highly complex and potentially explosive situation. Please share your assessment of the situation, and the arguments detailed in the articles cited above, with your fellow Atlantic Community members.
Image: futureatlas.com, License: CC by 2.0
- 9
August 13, 2010
Paul-Robert Lookman, http://geopolitiek-in-perspectief.blogspot.com/, Platinum Contributor (280)
Just to quote from Wikipedia:
“… Goldberg argues that the threat posed to America by Saddam Hussein is significant. Goldberg goes on to relate detailed allegations of a close relationship between Hussein and Al Qaeda, … Goldberg argues that: "If these charges are true, it would mean that the relationship between Saddam’s regime and Al Qaeda is far closer than previously thought."
Goldberg concludes his article with allegations about Hussein's supposed Weapons of Mass Destruction: Saddam Hussein never gave up his hope of turning Iraq into a nuclear power ... There is some debate among arms-control experts about exactly when Saddam will have nuclear capabilities. But there is no disagreement that Iraq, if unchecked, will have them soon ... There is little doubt what Saddam might do with an atomic bomb or with his stocks of biological and chemical weapons.
In a late 2002 debate in Slate, Goldberg described Hussein as "uniquely evil" and advocated an invasion on a moral basis: There is consensus belief now that Saddam could have an atomic bomb within months of acquiring fissile material. ... The administration is planning today to launch what many people would undoubtedly call a short-sighted and inexcusable act of aggression. In five years, however, I believe that the coming invasion of Iraq will be remembered as an act of profound morality.”