As the most pro-Israel administration in Washington since Harry Truman enters its last six months in office, Israel faces a strategic choice. Will it use the possible indulgence of the Bush Administration to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, or will it wait and face an uncertain future with a new American president? Halting Iran's path toward the development of a nuclear bomb appears to be one of those seemingly insoluble chess problems. The Iranians may agree to this negotiating proposal or that proposal, all the while playing for time, while they develop sufficient enriched uranium to produce a nuclear bomb. A nuclear arsenal will allow Iran to become a Middle East hegemon like the Great Persia of antiquity, yet it will also encourage countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey to develop their own bombs. Iran will represent the heretofore unseen and unconventional combination of being a nuclear-armed state which supports sub-state armies in Iraq, Lebanon, and the Gaza Strip. Enter Israel, which is the only state that Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has specifically and repeatedly threatened with annihilation. Israel recently held massive air exercises hundreds of miles off its coast in the eastern Mediterranean, both honing and displaying to the outside world the complex aerial sortie and air-to-air refueling skills that would be specifically required in an attack on Iran. The exercise was not just a message directed at Iran itself, but at the Europeans - to get serious in helping the United States to force Iran to stop enrichment, or face a military cataclysm that could immediately send the price of oil past $200 a barrel, with collateral effects on world stock markets. But what if the Europeans don't get the message? Or what if Iran continues its cat-and-mouse negotiating mixed with intransigence? Israel's future in this regard is indeed bleak. For even if a moderate Republican realist like John McCain, or even worse, a liberal-left internationalist like Barack Obama, is elected president, each is likely to subsume Israel to larger geopolitical considerations, rather than hold it up as an icon to be both supported and worshipped in the post-9/11 era, as George W. Bush has done. Because an air attack on Iranian nuclear facilities will roil world financial markets and thus provide Obama with even more of an edge over the Republican party, Israel may be less inclined to attack Iran before the election. On the other hand, after the inauguration, Israel will be in the hands of a new American president who will show it much less sympathy than Bush. That's why someone might bet on the period between the election and the inauguration -- say December -- as the perfect time for an Israeli attack. There is a problem, though. Violating, say, Jordanian or Turkish airspace is not really the issue. The issue is that largely because of the on-going Iraq war, the U. S. controls the airspace over the entry points to Iran: in Iraq and in the Persian Gulf. Thus, an Israeli attack on Iran could probably only happen with U. S. connivance. And even if Israel could evade American sensors, few would believe that it honestly did so. As a sort of a last hurrah, one might speculate that Bush and Vice President **** Cheney would let Israel bomb Iran with a wink and a nod. But I do not believe that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates would do so. And because Gates has emerged as such a critical cabinet member, beloved by both the Pentagon staff and by the media, his word would be crucial. Gates has shepherded Iraq from nearly a lost cause to a cause that might yet be salvaged. And an Israeli attack on Iran, precisely because it could not occur without both the fact and the appearance of U. S. support, could unleash a fury of Iran-supported bombings inside Iraq. No, Gates would not be on board for an Israeli strike. Bottom line: precisely because the U. S. dominates the airspace around Iran, it has checkmated itself. Israel will find it very hard to pull America's chestnuts out of the fire in Iran. An Israeli attack is, in the last analysis, still unlikely. The problem of a nuclear Iran is far from being solved. There will be a draft if we are going to have a WWIII and if a war comes in bush stays president.
Undoubtably, this is not going to end pretty. And what Obama plans will get him nowhere on this issue. If Obama wants to talk, allow him to talk, and Israel will become Hiroshima, and Israel will be captive once more unless they retaliate or attack first. War is not a thing of beauty or a symbol of life, but like the fire that burns and kills, turning the soil to ash, the time after the fire yeilds a forest more beautiful than the first. A reasoning few people rationally see. No doubt, the liberal media of America will push for this war, leading Obama to his doom at the hands of Ahmadinejad, for which I pity the blind and blameless oreo. We revere Conquestador, Hernando Cortez as a rutheless, vulgar conquoror who killed countless innocent people onhis quests in Mexico. However, history is only half correct, as Cortez was a Catholic, though we are not particularly proud of his doings, he brought an end to the pagan killings of the tribes in Mexico, who had killed more innocents than any of Cortez's men combined. It was at first a negotiation to try and stop these mindless sacrifices to idols made or gold, silver, and bronze and nothing more than material, but when the pagan tribes continued their slaughter, Hernando was ready, and so unleashed his army amoung the leaders of these tribes. This shows that while war is not neccasary in most cases, it is neccasary when the rights of human beings is more important than dollars, gold, or treasures. We live in a society where the media is so corrupt, we are no less different than the Roman Empire in that respect, as our politicians such as John Kerry and others whom the media smiles upon and ignores the controverisal actions of, are spreaders of words that should be kept only for mad men. If Bush or a Republican party member were to fall out of a golf cart, do something minorly horendous, or be caught in some sort of scandal of minor proportions, the no-longer-free press is going to know, have pictures, and post it all over the news so that people learn to hate those we should trust, like hounds being taught to kill prisoners of war in the former Al Gharib under the reign of Sadam. The Islamics, Muslims, Catholic, and Jeweish communities have been at war for over two thousand years, so no one truely knows when it will end. As it is playfully put in Adam Sandler's recent movie, You don't mess with the Zohan, "They've been fighting for over two thousand years, they're bound to stop soon." I fear and pray for the innocent people who are subject to their own people, to people who do not understand, and to all who will be put in the media as selling items, no more. If you so wish to accuse me of my own faith, Catholicism, as I have stated I pray for these people, and I have mentioned my faith several times in my post, go ahead and be ignorant of the understandings which you do not posses. Mock the people who are different from the corrupt people who pose as Catholics, and leave the posers to relish in their deeds to destroy the faith I live by. I understand Muslim, Jewish, and Islamic traditions to the point I do not make false accusations against them, so mock me for that as well, and further sheild thyself in a cloak of plight. This goes out to no one in particular, just in the case somebody decideds to say something stupid. As these are all of my thoughts on the matter.
I doubt Israel would make such a move considering that if they did we would ultimately be facing WW III. Israel is seen as anti-Muslim strongly because of past prime ministers that could also be looked at as war mongers. Just as much as many Islamic people disdain Israel, there are a fair amount of Israelis that are against them and the Palestinian/Israel conflict is one with crimes on both sides, whether people like to admit it or not. To cause a war with Iran, attacking them would be taken in utter outrage and then everyone would have to get involved in the mess because it would cause a stupid holy war of epic proportions. In the end, Israel would be smarter to just defend itself and work out fixing its own problems than doing such a hasty maneuver and if we (the U.S.) backed such a stupid maneuver, I would be extremely disappointed. Israel has received many things from Europe and the U.S. to defend itself and some of it has been used very poorly. This isn't to say I'm anti-Semetic, but I do see the pain on both sides of the conflicts in the Middle East and no one can really claim to have clean blood free hands when it comes to the region. Despotic warlords are there because it can be gotten away with and have actually received help. The culture over there is different than what Americans, Canadians and Europeans are used to, which is a reason why so many Muslims flee the territory in the first place. Any acts though by Israel in a direct assault fashion just would in simple be the dumbest thing Israel could do and it's bad enough that we moved into Iraq without enough provocation and without finishing the work in Afghanistan. We don't need anymore trouble and I think a lot of Americans would actually be furious if Israel went and did anything; especially should a President clear it. One thing I find amusing is that Richard Cheney's shortened name is also censored here. He's such an ass. lol.
