ID :
188103
Mon, 06/13/2011 - 09:10
Auther :
Shortlink :
https://oananews.org//node/188103
The shortlink copeid
Israeli Leaders Dismiss Attack on Iran as Act of Suicide
TEHRAN (FNA)- Several Zionist leaders and former defense and intelligence officials warned that an invasion of Iran would be a sheer act of madness as an Israeli attack on Iran would be reciprocated with such a powerful reprisal that would wipe Israel off the map.
The Zionist daily Maariv said that former Mossad Chief Meir Dagan is not the only senior military-intelligence official decrying a possible Israeli strike on Iran. Among the others who agree with him are former chief of IDF intelligence Shlomo Gazit, former defense minister Benyamin Ben Eliezer, and former Mossad director Ephraim HaLevy, and many others.
Maariv's reporter also notes Ephraim HaLevy's comments in a Time Magazine 2008 interview in which he predicts the results of an Israeli attack will be "devastating in the long run."
"It may impact us for the next 100 years, including an enormous negative affect on Arab public opinion toward us," HaLevy said.
In an interview for the current article, HaLevy went even farther, pointing out that in the Time interview he hadn't said "100 years," but rather "a century," by which he meant the negative impacts would be felt for generations, possibly even more than 100 years.
Shlomo Gazit goes even farther, saying, "An Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear reactors will lead to the liquidation of Israel. We will cease to exist after such an attack. The result we seek in this attack of destroying Iran's nuclear capability will have the opposite result. Iran will immediately become an explicit nuclear power. Iran will play the oil card to force the UN to pressure Israel to return to 1967 borders. Such a settlement will, of course, include Jerusalem as well."
"The threat of missiles across every part of Israel, international pressure and the necessity of returning the Territories. This we will not be able to survive. This is what Meir Dagan is trying to say. Use some common sense and ask yourselves why such an attack is necessary."
Even one of those who planned and conceived the Osirak attack in 1979 on Iraq's nuclear reactor, Aviam Sela, warns that Israel was forced to spend huge sums to defend itself from expected Iraqi counter-attack, which didn't materialize until the SCUD attacks of the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Sela says far and away the most desired method of resolving this conflict is through negotiation. "The military option," he says, "is the least desirable solution."
The director of Israel's Atomic Energy Agency at the time of the Osirak attack, Uzi Elam, opposed it vehemently because he believed it would cause the world to invoke sanctions against Israel and would ratchet up a Middle East arms race, which is precisely what he claims happened, with Saddam dabbling in WMD, biological weapons, (which by 2003 he had abandoned), etc.
"The attack didn't stop Iraq's desire to develop nuclear weapons, it strengthened it," Elam said.
Similarly, Benyamin Ben Eliezer warns that an attack may delay development of nuclear material at the facility attacked, but it will not delay overall development. In fact, it will only strengthen Iran's determination to become a nuclear power.
Another senior official of Israel's Home Defense, which will be responsible for caring for the Israeli refugees from Iranian counter-attack, also warns that an attack on Iran, instead of ending Iran's nuclear ambitions, may ignite a nuclear arms race in the region, the opposite of Bibi's intent.
Israel and its close ally the United States accuse Iran of seeking a nuclear weapon, while they have never presented any corroborative document to substantiate their allegations. Both Washington and Tel Aviv possess advanced weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear warheads.
Iran vehemently denies the charges, insisting that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. Tehran stresses that the country has always pursued a civilian path to provide power to the growing number of Iranian population, whose fossil fuel would eventually run dry.
Speculation that Israel could also bomb Iran mounted after a big Israeli air drill three years ago. In the first week of June 2008, 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighters reportedly took part in an exercise over the eastern Mediterranean and Greece, which was interpreted as a dress rehearsal for a possible attack on Iran's nuclear installations.
Iran has warned that it would target Israel and its worldwide interests in case it comes under attack by the Tel Aviv.
The United States has always stressed that military action is a main option for the White House to deter Iran's progress in the field of nuclear technology.
Iran has warned that in case of an attack by either the US or Israel, it will target 32 American bases in the Middle East and close the strategic Strait of Hormoz.
An estimated 40 percent of the world's oil supply passes through the waterway.
Meantime, a recent study by the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), a prestigious American think tank, has found that a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities "is unlikely" to delay the country's program.
In a Sep. 11, 2008 report, the Washington Institute for the Near East Policy also said that in the two decades since the Iran-Iraq War, the Islamic Republic has excelled in naval capabilities and is able to wage unique asymmetric warfare against larger naval forces.
According to the report, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Navy (IRGCN) has been transformed into a highly motivated, well-equipped, and well-financed force and is effectively in control of the world's oil lifeline, the Strait of Hormuz.
The study says that if Washington takes military action against the Islamic Republic, the scale of Iran's response would likely be proportional to the scale of the damage inflicted on Iranian assets.
A recent study by a fellow at Harvard's Olin Institute for Strategic Studies, Caitlin Talmadge, warned that Iran could use mines as well as missiles to block the strait, and that "it could take many weeks, even months, to restore the full flow of commerce, and more time still for the oil markets to be convinced that stability had returned".
The Zionist daily Maariv said that former Mossad Chief Meir Dagan is not the only senior military-intelligence official decrying a possible Israeli strike on Iran. Among the others who agree with him are former chief of IDF intelligence Shlomo Gazit, former defense minister Benyamin Ben Eliezer, and former Mossad director Ephraim HaLevy, and many others.
Maariv's reporter also notes Ephraim HaLevy's comments in a Time Magazine 2008 interview in which he predicts the results of an Israeli attack will be "devastating in the long run."
"It may impact us for the next 100 years, including an enormous negative affect on Arab public opinion toward us," HaLevy said.
In an interview for the current article, HaLevy went even farther, pointing out that in the Time interview he hadn't said "100 years," but rather "a century," by which he meant the negative impacts would be felt for generations, possibly even more than 100 years.
Shlomo Gazit goes even farther, saying, "An Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear reactors will lead to the liquidation of Israel. We will cease to exist after such an attack. The result we seek in this attack of destroying Iran's nuclear capability will have the opposite result. Iran will immediately become an explicit nuclear power. Iran will play the oil card to force the UN to pressure Israel to return to 1967 borders. Such a settlement will, of course, include Jerusalem as well."
"The threat of missiles across every part of Israel, international pressure and the necessity of returning the Territories. This we will not be able to survive. This is what Meir Dagan is trying to say. Use some common sense and ask yourselves why such an attack is necessary."
Even one of those who planned and conceived the Osirak attack in 1979 on Iraq's nuclear reactor, Aviam Sela, warns that Israel was forced to spend huge sums to defend itself from expected Iraqi counter-attack, which didn't materialize until the SCUD attacks of the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Sela says far and away the most desired method of resolving this conflict is through negotiation. "The military option," he says, "is the least desirable solution."
The director of Israel's Atomic Energy Agency at the time of the Osirak attack, Uzi Elam, opposed it vehemently because he believed it would cause the world to invoke sanctions against Israel and would ratchet up a Middle East arms race, which is precisely what he claims happened, with Saddam dabbling in WMD, biological weapons, (which by 2003 he had abandoned), etc.
"The attack didn't stop Iraq's desire to develop nuclear weapons, it strengthened it," Elam said.
Similarly, Benyamin Ben Eliezer warns that an attack may delay development of nuclear material at the facility attacked, but it will not delay overall development. In fact, it will only strengthen Iran's determination to become a nuclear power.
Another senior official of Israel's Home Defense, which will be responsible for caring for the Israeli refugees from Iranian counter-attack, also warns that an attack on Iran, instead of ending Iran's nuclear ambitions, may ignite a nuclear arms race in the region, the opposite of Bibi's intent.
Israel and its close ally the United States accuse Iran of seeking a nuclear weapon, while they have never presented any corroborative document to substantiate their allegations. Both Washington and Tel Aviv possess advanced weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear warheads.
Iran vehemently denies the charges, insisting that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. Tehran stresses that the country has always pursued a civilian path to provide power to the growing number of Iranian population, whose fossil fuel would eventually run dry.
Speculation that Israel could also bomb Iran mounted after a big Israeli air drill three years ago. In the first week of June 2008, 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighters reportedly took part in an exercise over the eastern Mediterranean and Greece, which was interpreted as a dress rehearsal for a possible attack on Iran's nuclear installations.
Iran has warned that it would target Israel and its worldwide interests in case it comes under attack by the Tel Aviv.
The United States has always stressed that military action is a main option for the White House to deter Iran's progress in the field of nuclear technology.
Iran has warned that in case of an attack by either the US or Israel, it will target 32 American bases in the Middle East and close the strategic Strait of Hormoz.
An estimated 40 percent of the world's oil supply passes through the waterway.
Meantime, a recent study by the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), a prestigious American think tank, has found that a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities "is unlikely" to delay the country's program.
In a Sep. 11, 2008 report, the Washington Institute for the Near East Policy also said that in the two decades since the Iran-Iraq War, the Islamic Republic has excelled in naval capabilities and is able to wage unique asymmetric warfare against larger naval forces.
According to the report, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Navy (IRGCN) has been transformed into a highly motivated, well-equipped, and well-financed force and is effectively in control of the world's oil lifeline, the Strait of Hormuz.
The study says that if Washington takes military action against the Islamic Republic, the scale of Iran's response would likely be proportional to the scale of the damage inflicted on Iranian assets.
A recent study by a fellow at Harvard's Olin Institute for Strategic Studies, Caitlin Talmadge, warned that Iran could use mines as well as missiles to block the strait, and that "it could take many weeks, even months, to restore the full flow of commerce, and more time still for the oil markets to be convinced that stability had returned".
