StormWarning’s Counterterrorism

Once again, there is a spreading (and almost hopeful) rumor that an attack on Iran is impending. The source? Primarily the Dutch newspaper, De Telegraaf. More “stuff” is here. Who knew that the Dutch had spies.

Let’s deal with a few “pointers.”

1) As noted “elsewhere” by one of our readers, AC McCloud, “It would be stupid for Bush to authorize an attack before the election with the Dems tying McCain to his belt loop at every chance.” Note however that the NRO article (below) does argue that an attack while under the new President (regardless of who it is) would be unlikely and that, therefore, an attack with GWB still in office to “clean-up” business could occur (I still don’t think so - but I could be wrong).

2) Despite the “cheering and rooting section” who somehow believe that an attack against Iran would be a good thing (I also read that a pre-emptive strike against Iran would leave Iran powerless to retaliate), it should be remembered that extreme heat will turn desert sand into glass (actually this hapens at approximately 3,600°F which is 1,982°C).

3) I submit that the linkage of the newly emboldened Russian bear with Iran makes a pre-emptive strike against Iran a “poor choice.”

4) About 3 weeks ago, Haaretz (הארץ) published an article detailing how the US had rejected an Israeli plan to attack Iran and denied Israel war materiale for the attack.

5) The regional and Global implications of such an attack are, in my opinion, beyond comprehension.

A little less than a year and a half ago, this was discussed here, Sneak Attack Against Iran This Friday! and yet, it is still “predicted.”

What’s the truth? I suspect that James Robbins of National Review (Another Rumor of War) is pretty close to objective when he writes:

Is an attack along the lines of that reported by De Telegraaf feasible? Critics say our forces are stretched thin, but not the air and naval strike assets that would be used in this type of limited operation. The targets would be hard to hit, but not impossible to take out. The Iranian nuclear program would be delayed, not destroyed — but isn’t delay better than just letting them go ahead? Iran might seek to escalate the crisis in a number of ways — an Iranian general recently said World War Three would break out while being a bit unclear on who would be on what side — but there is no scenario in which the U.S. would not be able to maintain escalation dominance. Iran can do many things to hurt the United States, its allies, and its interests — in fact is already active in Iraq and elsewhere. But Iran will have to calculate whether a demonstration of their unconventional power will be worth the risk of a full scale demonstration of U.S. conventional force. In this vein, witness Syria’s response to Israel’s raid on their nuclear facility last September. We’re still waiting for it.

I have no idea whether any of these reports of imminent action are true. But as the various clocks keep ticking, the strategic logic of active counter-proliferation against Iran becomes more compelling. The U.S. may act, Israel may act, or not. We will know soon enough, one way or the other.

What do I really think? Armageddon is still a way off, regardless of what some of the cyber-sabre rattlers think.

Armageddon, attack Iran, De Telegraaf, Haaretz