He then translates an article by Israeli journalist Rotem Sella, which we clip as follows:
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was about to order an attack on Iran in September 2012, but canceled the operation in response to U.S. pressure, the former head of Israel’s National Security Council said last month. Gen. Giora Eiland (retired) added that Israel “has a real ability to destroy Iran’s nuclear program,” and that it is possible that the American veto was related to the presidential election then in progress.Sella then continues, concluding with:
“At the time [September 2012] the Prime Minister thought that we had gotten to a critical point on the Iranian issue and planned to carry out attacks,” Gen. Eiland said at a closed-door conference held on August 19, adding that “Israel did not have in principle approval of U.S. military operations, unless Americans require one – cut prevented any action. ” According to Eiland, the issue was raised at a meeting between Netanyahu and the Americans, who said that the planned attack was out of the question for them, which led to its cancellation.
Since the cancellation of the planned Iran’s nuclear program has continued to progress. Today, argues Eiland, Israel again faces a difficult choice. “Time has passed and we stand before exactly the same decision, with less time. ” He added, “The lack of resolution is dramatic.”
In September 2012, when Eiland headed Israel’s National Security Council, Obama was in trouble due to his poor performance in the first televised debate with Romney. He may have preferred to avoid a war that could harm his re-election campaign.Chilling.
Do circumstances today allow Netanyahu to attack? That is difficult to assess. But while the Syrian story and Obama’s hesitations occupy the headlines, it is important to remember that the real drama is in Iran.
To give context, in 1967, Israel first appealed to the international community to break the blockade of Tiran, then the US -- which had given assurances to Israel in 1956 - 7, on which Israel had withdrawn from the Sinai after the1956 campaign.
As usual, there were promises, but no effective action, and the Americans were in disagreement with Israel striking to defend itself in the face of strangulation by blockade -- an act of war -- backed up by an iron ring of tanks.
Israel then struck without warning, struck decisively and by rolling all it had on the table in one toss. As the opening blow, it sent out everything that could fly (leaving only a handful of aircraft to guard Israel's air space) to strike the Egyptian air force. This proved to be the decisive -- though highly risky -- blow. But, at that time the Israelis saw themselves as facing an existential threat, complete with open advocacy of genocide on defeating Israel.
So, as Iran continues to sprint to nukes (having made genocidal threats) and as it continues to play with its cat's paws in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza, we can rest assured the Israelis are watching.
Beyond a certain point, the Israelis will act, regardless of world opinion and how inconvenient such an act will be, or how much disapproval it will bring down on Israel.
Israel will act, because Iran has made its genocidal intentions quite brutally plain. In the end, it will act regardless of what the Obama administration thinks. And, in the end I think the cynical attitude in too many quarters is, if the Israelis will act in the end, why should we take the matter too seriously. (Which is exactly one of the key reasons why it is spinning out of control as the Mullahs think they may be able to cross the nuke finish line before they can be stopped.)
So, the Middle East is evidently even more unstable than we might think.
Which directly implies the global economy is fundamentally unstable, through impacts on the price and availability of energy, specifically oil and oil based fuels.
We had better get ourselves ready for a wild ride, which can come on at almost any time without warning. END
