"We’d Hit Iran Harder Than You!"

Saturday, 10 March 2012

"We’d Hit Iran Harder Than You!"

Via FLC

Remember: All that talk is of aggressing a sovereign nation who has done no harm to America!

"... Panetta did everything but dismiss an Israeli bombing run during an interview with Yochi Dreazen ofNational Journal, a Danger Room pal. “If they decided to do it there’s no question that it would have an impact,” Panetta said, “but I think it’s also clear that if the United States did it we would have a hell of a bigger impact.”

That’s not just Panetta’s typical florid language. (Even if his spokesman tweeted that the comments are a non-story.) It’s a simultaneous chin check to Iran and passive-aggressive way of restraining Israel.
An Israeli bombing run would be formidable. It would surely feature a lot of suppression of Iranian air defenses, spoofing of Iranian command systems, and jamming of Iranian radars, all before stuff started really blowing up. But practically no analyst thinks it would destroy Iran’s nuclear program. It might set it back for a few years. But Iran’s buried its nuclear facilities — the ones people know about — deep, and apparently use a super-hard kind of concrete to protect them. Earlier this week, the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz reported that Israel asked Panetta for advanced bunker-busting bombs and refueling aircraft, two key components to a sustained bombing campaign that Israel doesn’t sufficiently possess. Panetta’s spokesman, George Little, told Danger Room the story was incorrect, though Israel’s needs are real.
Maybe the Israelis are OK with setting the program back a couple years instead of ending it. But they’ve also got to prepare for Iranian retaliation, including missiles that can hit Tel Aviv and the prospect of a new wave of terrorist attacks.
Meanwhile, there’s little doubt that Panetta’s correct. The chief of staff of the U.S. Air Force, Gen. Norton Schwartz, indicated last week that his bombers could light Iran up. But he questioned the wisdom of a potential strike, wondering what the actual objective would be. That followed on Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, telling CNN that such a strike was “not prudent.”
And that got the Israelis angry and fearful that the U.S. wouldn’t credibly threaten a bomb attack, leaving them to hint about taking matters into their own hands. That in turn got President Obama to tell The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg he “had Israel’s back.” But in a press conference this week, Obama softened that bellicose tone. Which raised the prospect of an Israeli strike again. The Atlantic‘s new Iran Doomsday Clock says it’s ten minutes to midnight — that is, a war.
Panetta’s comments represent the administration’s newest attempt at a balanced public line on Iran and Israel. He prefaced that Israel should give sanctions time to compel a change in Iranian behavior. Then he subtly told Israel that its attack would be amateur hour and warned Iran against making him reach for his revolver.
All that represents an awkward truth for the United States. Obama, Panetta and the rest of the president’s national security team say they don’t have a containment policy for an Iranian nuke, they have a prevention policy. That’s debatable. But they definitely have a prevention policy for an Israeli strike, even if it’s an undeclared one."