Oil prices rose Nov. 6 to $95 a barrel, a more than seven-week peak, on heightened concerns about Iran’s nuclear program and rumors of impending Israeli military strikes on the Islamic Republic. The tensions come as the International Atomic Energy Agency released a report finding that Iran is capable of developing a nuclear weapon, although stopping short of saying it intends to do so. (Reuters, WP, Nov. 7) Days earlier, Israel successfully tested a long-range ballistic missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. The Jericho 3 missile, fired from Palmahim air force base, was seen by tens of thousands of Israelis. Many called the emergency services and radio stations in panic, believing it was an incoming missile. Defense minister Ehud Barak said: “This is an impressive technological achievement and an important step in Israel’s progress in the missile and space field.” (Irish Times, Nov. 3)
The Guardian stirred fears Nov. 2 with a report that “Britain’s armed forces are stepping up their contingency planning for potential military action against Iran,” foreseeing the use of Diego Garcia as a staging ground by US forces.
Jeffrey Goldberg writes on Bloomberg Nov. 7:
The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who once told me he believes that Iran is led by a “messianic, apocalyptic cult,” is correct to view Iran as a threat to his country’s existence.
And yet, a preemptive Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities could be a grievous mistake. For one thing, it may already be too late. The Iranians may have dispersed and hardened their nuclear program to the point that an Israeli strike would do only glancing damage. The Israeli Air Force, as good as it is, would be stretched to its limit by such an operation.
The morality of a strike, which could cause substantial Iranian casualties, would be questioned even by those sympathetic to Israel’s dilemma. Israel will have succeeded in casting Iran as a victim and itself as something of a rogue nation. The international isolation it would experience could be catastrophic in itself. A strike might also endanger Americans in the Middle East and beyond.
It seems like Goldberg is playing his cards more carefully than he did at this time a year ago, when he flatly predicted an Israeli attack on Iran by the end of 2010. In fact, speculation of an imminent attack on Iran has been raised in the media numerous times over the past several years.
See our last posts on Israel, Iran, nuclear fear, and the politics of global oil.
Please leave a tip or answer the Exit Poll.
WikiLeaks: IAEA in US pocket
Iran’s Press TV on Nov. 8 recalls an October 2009 US diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks. The cable concerns Yukiya Amano’s ascendence to leadership of the IAEA, and notes: “Amano reminded [the] ambassador on several occasions that he would need to make concessions to the G-77 [the developing countries group], which correctly required him to be fair-minded and independent, but that he was solidly in the US court on every key strategic decision, from high-level personnel appointments to the handling of Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program.”
Panetta, ex-Mossad chief rain on Iran alarmism parade
In words that will be very disappointing to the Chicken Little crowd, US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta waxed considerably cautious on the possibility of military action against Iran. “You’ve got to be careful of unintended consequences here,” Panetta told reporters at the Pentagon. “It could have a serious impact in the region, and it could have a serious impact on US forces in the region. And I think all of those things, you know, need to be carefully considered.” (The Guardian, Nov. 11)
Ex-Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy also warned against military action, saying: “An attack on Iran could affect not only Israel, but the entire region for 100 years.” He added that while Iran should be prevented from becoming a nuclear power, its capabilities are still “far from posing an existential threat to Israel.” (YNet, Nov, 4)
Sorry, alarmists.
Meanwhile, media commentators are arguing over the identity of the “foreign expert” the IAEA says helped Iran develop detonators for nuclear weapons, and who was named in the Washington Post to be one Vyacheslav Danilenko. Gareth Porter on IPS tells us that Danilenko is not a nuclear scientist but a nanodiamonds expert (a claim seized upon with glee by the left-wing echo chamber). Global Post takes a more balanced view, pointing out that you don’t have to be nuclear scientist to work on detonators for nuclear warheads, that nanodiamonds are actually produced by small explosions, and that Danilenko apparently did work at Russia’s VNIITF nuclear weapons lab in the Ural Mountains.
Uri Avnery rains on Iran alarmism parade
The Israeli leftist commentator Uri Avnery joins the crystal ball set, but from the other side. Here’s an excerpt from his latest piece, on Palestine Chronicle Nov. 3. The opening line is also the title:
Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman rains on Iran alarmism parade
Sorry, alarmists. From The Guardian, Aug. 30:
Complicity?
Sorry General, but if those Israeli bombers even reach Iran they will have to fly across
“US ‘controlled’ airspace”, and those words will follow every American and every Jew around the world.
Yeah, words matter, remember when Krushev said he would destroy America?
Something I learned a long time ago from Aristotle; “You can have second thoughts, and you may get a second chance, but there are no ‘second choices’. Once a thing is done, it IS……and what comes next only follows.
“US ‘controlled’ airspace”?
Do you mean Iraq? Technically, I don’t think the US controls that airspace anymore (as recent events have demonstrated), and theoretically they could go around it.