New York Times

Israel will almost surely attack Iran’s nuclear sites in the next four to seven months. (during a lame-duck White House)

Should Israel’s conventional assault fail to significantly harm or stall the Iranian program, a ratcheting up of the Iranian-Israeli conflict to a nuclear level will most likely follow. Every intelligence agency in the world believes the Iranian program is geared toward making weapons, not to the peaceful applications of nuclear power. Western intelligence agencies agree that Iran will reach the “point of no return” in acquiring the capacity to produce nuclear weapons in one to four years.

America has the conventional military capacity to do the job, but the American public lacks the enthusiasm for another war in the Middle East.

This leaves it up to the country threatened almost daily with destruction by Iran’s leaders, Israel.

Recent reports about Israeli plans and preparations to attack Iran (the period from Nov. 5 to Jan. 19 seems the best bet, as it gives the West half a year to try the diplomatic route but ensures that Israel will have support from a lame-duck White House).

The best outcome will be that an Israeli conventional strike, whether failed or not - and, given the Tehran regime’s totalitarian grip, it may not be immediately clear how much damage the Israeli assault has caused - would persuade the Iranians to halt their nuclear program, or at least persuade the Western powers to significantly increase the diplomatic and economic pressure on Iran.

Iran is likely to use any bomb they build, both because of ideology and because of fear of Israeli nuclear pre-emption. Thus an Israeli nuclear strike to prevent the Iranians from taking the final steps toward getting the bomb is probable. The alternative is letting Tehran have its bomb. In either case, a Middle Eastern nuclear holocaust would be in the cards.

What would you do if your country, life and very existence was at stake?

I wouldn’t be embracing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but Barack Obama will.

ShareThis