Israel can't attack without help from others, particularly the US, Iraq or Turkey... none is so inclined.
By DOUGLAS BLOOMFIELDdouglas bloomfield224.88(photo credit: )
It's no secret Sarah Palin's words are carefully scripted and rehearsed. And she delivers them effectively, though at times appearing more programmed than spontaneous.
That pre-programmed quality was especially obvious in her response to ABC anchor Charles Gibson's questions about a McCain-Palin administration's response to a possible Israeli attack on Iran. He tried three times and each answer was virtually verbatim.
"I don't think that we should second-guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security," she said.
There was nothing spontaneous about that answer; her handlers had expected it and briefed her on just what to say. Gov. Palin may be a foreign policy novice, notwithstanding Alaska's proximity to Russia, but McCain's hawkish foreign policy advisers are not.
What message were they trying to send? And to whom? Was the McCain camp flashing a green light for an Israeli attack without having to say so directly, thus preserving a bit of Nixonian plausible deniability?
AT A campaign stop in South Carolina last year McCain was asked when he thought the US might "send an air mail message to Teheran." His answer, widely seen on YouTube, was, "You know that old Beach Boys song, 'Bomb Iran,'" and he sang, to the tune of "Barbara Ann," "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran." That would delight some leading neocons like former UN ambassador John Bolton, Daniel Pipes and Norman Podhoretz who have called for bombing Iranian nuclear facilities. That view is reportedly shared by Vice President Richard Cheney.
Barring a US attack, they'd like to see Israel do the job. Cheney has publicly suggested Israel "might well decide to act first" to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions.
They'd like to see it done between November 4 and January 20 - too late to affect the presidential election and too early to leave the decision to the next president, especially if it is Barack Obama.
Does that mean McCain wouldn't object to being presented a fait accompli if he is elected, letting Bush take the heat for the attack? Or a scheme to force a more confrontational approach if Obama is elected, since the neocons fear he might be too inclined toward diplomacy?
Fueling the latest round of speculation was the announcement that the US is sending 1,000 GBU-39 bunker buster bombs, but experts say they can't penetrate far enough to knock out Iran's deeply buried nuclear facilities.
Bush so far is siding with his secretaries of state and defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and his intelligence officials, who counsel against military action. The Pentagon fears the first target of Iranian retaliation will be US forces and interests in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Gulf region, and we are in no position for a third war, notwithstanding Cheney's unending bellicosity.
THE REPUBLICAN and Democratic platforms agree a nuclear Iran is intolerable, and call for tougher sanctions and heightened economic and political pressure and keeping "all options" on the table. The big difference is the emphasis on diplomacy. Republicans reject the Democrats' call for "aggressive, principled and direct high-level diplomacy, without preconditions," and insist Teheran must first "improve its behavior."
There's little sign of good behavior, however. On Monday an International Atomic Energy Agency report said Iran continues defying UN resolutions to halt uranium enrichment and is not cooperating with the agency's efforts to verify its claim that its nuclear program has no military dimension.
With Israel in a leadership transition, it would be difficult to undertake such a major military operation. President Shimon Peres warned, "It will not solve the problem" and only "trigger a bigger war." He has criticized the Bush administration for relying too heavily on military action instead of economic and political pressure.
Israel can't attack without help from others, particularly the US, Iraq or Turkey, and none is so inclined. When Israeli leaders raised the question with the Bush administration about opening an air corridor over Iraq for IAF bombers, refueling tankers and electronic warfare planes, they were told to take that up with Prime Minister Nouri al-Malaki of the sovereign Republic of Iraq. Translation: fuggedaboutit.
Even if Israel acted on its own, the US would be fully implicated; no one would believe Israel would or could act without an American green light and full cooperation.
"The security of the Persian Gulf region is an American responsibility, not an Israeli one, and no one in their right mind is going to abdicate that responsibility or contract it out," one expert said.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy earlier this month warned Iran it is "taking a major risk" if it tries to build a bomb because it could wake up and "find one morning that Israel has struck."
Sarah Palin may think it is strictly Israel's business whether it decides to attack Iran, but if she ever gets a chance to meet with this country's military and intelligence leaders she may find that it can't be done without our cooperation and will have serious implications for the US. And she might be surprised to learn that such an attack would have serious implications for both Israel and the US - something she apparently didn't learn as commander-in-chief of the Alaska National Guard.
if(catID != 151){
var cont = `Take Israel home with the new Jerusalem Post Store
