Israel Matzav: 'Don't even think of bombing Iran'?

'Don't even think of bombing Iran'?

Writing in the Financial Times of London (link available only with paid subscription), former NSC and CIA official Bruce Riedel and colleague Michael O'Hanlon, both of the Brookings Institution, argue against military strikes on Iran (I do not have a paid subscription, and therefore I am only citing and commenting on the portions quoted by Laura Rozen at Politico, which I will get to in a minute).

... The strike option, however, lacks credibility. America is engaged in two massive and unpopular military campaigns in the region. Given Iran’s ability to retaliate against the US in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is simply not credible that we would use force in the foreseeable future. Tehran, Moscow and Beijing know this.

The strike option is as credible as the United States chooses to make it. Polls indicate far more support in the US for a strike against Iran than there is for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And an American declaration that it will not strike Iran, which is essentially what Riedel and O'Hanlon are advocating, would make an Israeli strike more likely. Make no mistake about it: If Israel strikes Iran, Iran will retaliate against US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Laura Rozen's comments on a potential Israeli strike against Iran are worth reading in full. But this comment was especially intriguing:

"Israel has been interested for some time in items that could hit varied targets," the Washington Institute's Patrick Clawson told POLITICO. "Hezbollah is burying a lot of stocks, and digging more tunnels. Israel needs things that will hit varied targets that are [also] useful for Iran. Israel is also interested in [items that enable] long-distance strikes" such as those Israel reportedly used to strike Hamas weapons convoys in Sudan last year. "They can quite credibly say the last time we used this was not against Iran" but for other operations, Clawson said. "It's not very surprising they would be continuing to press" for such items. Nor that the Pentagon might turn them down.

Back to Reidel and O'Hanlon:

There is also a technical reality: even a massive strike would not slow Iran’s progress towards a bomb for long. We cannot be sure we know where all existing Iranian facilities to enrich uranium are located – as the revelation of yet another previously unknown site near Qom last year reminded us. Even if we did strike most or all existing facilities, Iran can rebuild fairly fast and would surely expel inspectors and burrow further underground when building its next facilities. It would be even harder to find, and strike, those assets. ...

Maybe. Or maybe they'd be delayed two years during which Ahmadinejad and Khameni would fall and a democratic regime would accede to power that would not be interested in nuclear weapons and would not prosecute a religious war against Israel. Those who argued against striking Saddam Hussein's Osirak reactor in 1981 also claimed that he would rebuild anyway. They were wrong.

Generally, those who argue against a military strike stop 10 yards short of the finish line. After concluding that a strike would not make sense, they still tend to tolerate leaving it as a last resort. There are dangers to such an approach. Mr Obama may some day come under pressure to employ it when all else has failed – and we think this would be a mistake ...

If all else has failed, you can bet that the Israelis will strike Iran regardless of what Obama does. If anything, not leaving the military option out there will make an Israeli strike more likely and will make it much less likely that any sanctions regime (do they oppose that too?) will be effective.

Israel Matzav: 'Don't even think of bombing Iran'?