Friday, July 20, 2012

Kobi Richter's trenchant Israel attack analysis

Today the Israeli newspaper Haaretz published an interview with Israeli Air Force veteran Kobi Richter who perfectly analyzes the folly of a pre-emptive attack by Israel on Iran. Here are Richter's points against an attack.

1) An attack will, if anything, only delay the debut of an Iranian nuclear bomb. “The choice is not between their bomb and us bombing them,” Richter replies. “The choice is between an Iranian bomb with no Israeli strike at date X, or an Iranian bomb after an Israeli strike at date X + 3.

2) An attack will cement Iranian determination to proceed with developing a nuclear bomb for it will be proven that it needs it to deter Israeli attack. Iran will not want a single bomb but many to offset the current Israeli nuclear advantage (just as was the case with the US/USSR faceoff). "“So the end result will be that, precisely because we attack Iran, the danger of an Iranian nuclear bomb falling in Gush Dan sooner or later will have gone up dramatically"

3) The economic cost to Israel of building a defense against nuclear attack will be affordable.

4) Israel, after attacking Iran, will be seen as a loose cannon, an unpredictable actor that will lash out at any and all under the second holocaust mentality. The world "will stop viewing us as a sane and enlightened nation whose survival it is morally committed to forever defend...Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt − which today are our covert and undeclared allies in the struggle against Iran, will not be able to ignore the brutal action carried out by the ‘infidels.’ Like it or not, they will be pushed into Islamic solidarity with Iran, against us."

The interviewer then says to Richter, "basically you’re saying that nuclearization is coming. Iran will go nuclear and the Middle East will go nuclear. What absolutely mustn’t happen is for this nuclearization to occur in wake of an Israeli attack. All the Israeli attack will do is make the nuclear Middle East a lot more dangerous for Israel than it would have been without it."

“That’s exactly what I’m saying,” Richter replies. “Posing the question as bomb versus bombing is misleading. The choice is between nuclearization that can be contained and nuclearization that cannot be contained. Following an Israeli strike, the nuclear Middle East will be unstable. Israel will not be able to handle it. And since it will also become a detested pariah state, it will not enjoy Western support, its economy will be burdened with an impossible defense budget and it will have great trouble sustaining this situation for long. The chances of its surviving the coming decades will be dramatically reduced.”

No comments:

Post a Comment