A longtime CIA officer who spent 21 years in the Middle East is predicting that Israel will bomb Iran this fall, dragging the United States into another major war and endangering U.S. military and civilian personnel (and other interests) throughout the Middle East and beyond.
Robert Baer made his prediction on the provocative KPFK Los Angeles show Background Briefing, hosted by Ian Masters.
Baer has had a storied career, including a stint in Iraq in the 1990s where he organized opposition to Saddam Hussein. (He was recalled after being accused of trying to organize Saddam's assassination). Upon his retirement, he received a top decoration for meritorious service. Incidentally, George Clooney won an Oscar for playing a character based on Baer in the film Syriana (Baer also wrote the book).
Baer didn't name sources for his prediction of an Israeli attack, but the few he did cite are all Israeli security figures who have publically warned that Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are hell-bent on war.
Baer is especially impressed by the unprecedented warning about Netanyahu's plans by former Mossad chief, Meir Dagan. Dagan left the Israeli intelligence agency in September 2010 and two months ago predicted that Israel would attack and that doing so would be "the stupidest thing" he could imagine. According to Haaretz:
When asked about what would happen in the aftermath of an Israeli attack Dagan said that: "It will be followed by a war with Iran. It is the kind of thing where we know how it starts, but not how it will end."
The Iranians have the capability to fire rockets at Israel for a period of months, and Hizbollah could fire tens of thousands of grad rockets and hundreds of long-range missiles, he said.
According to Ben Caspit of Israeli daily Maariv, Dagan's blasts at Israel's political leadership are significant not only because Mossad chiefs, in office or retired, traditionally have kept their lips sealed but also because Dagan is very conservative on security matters.
Caspit writes that Dagan is "one of the most rightwing militant people ever born here. ... When this man says that the leadership has no vision and is irresponsible, we should stop sleeping soundly at night."
Dagan describes the current Israeli government as "dangerous and irresponsible" and views speaking out against Netanyahu as his patriotic duty.
And his abhorrence of Netanyahu is not uncommon in the Israeli security establishment. According to Think Progress, citing the Forward newspaper, 12 of the 18 living ex-chiefs of Israel's two security agencies (Mossad and Shin Bet), are "either actively opposing Netanyahu's stances or have spoken out against them." Of the remaining six, two are current ministers in Netanyahu government, leaving a grand total of four out of 18 who independently support the prime minister.
In short, while Congress dutifully gives Netanyahu 29 standing ovations, the Israelis who know the most about both Netanyahu and Israel's strategic situation think he is a dangerous disaster.
But according to Baer, we ain't seen nothing yet.
There is almost "near certainty" that Netanyahu is "planning an attack [on Iran] ... and it will probably be in September before the vote on a Palestinian state. And he's also hoping to draw the United States into the conflict," Baer explained.
The Israeli air force would attack "Natanz and other nuclear facilities to degrade their capabilities. The Iranians will strike back where they can: Basra, Baghdad," he said, and even Afghanistan. Then the United States would jump into the fight with attacks on Iranian targets. "Our special forces are already looking at Iranian targets in Iraq and across the border [in Iran] which we would strike. What we're facing here is an escalation, rather than a planned out-and-out war...it's a nightmare scenario. We don't have enough troops in the Middle East to fight a war like that. I think we are looking into the abyss."
Masters asked Baer why the U.S. military is not mobilizing to stop this war from happening. Baer responded that the military is opposed, and so was the civilian head of the military, former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who used his influence to thwart an Israeli attack during the Bush and Obama administrations. But he's gone now and "there is a warning order inside the Pentagon" to prepare for war.
It should be noted that the Iranian regime is quite capable of triggering a war with the United States on its own through some combination of colossal stupidity and sheer hatred. In fact, Baer says, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard would welcome a war. They are "paranoid." They are "worried about ... what's happening to their country economically, in terms of the oil embargo and other sanctions." And they are worried about a population that increasingly despises the regime.
They need an external enemy. Because we are leaving Iraq, it's Israel. But in order to make this threat believable, they would love an attack on their nuclear facilities, love to go to war in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia and Iraq and hit us where they could. Their defense is asymmetrical. We can take out all of their armored units. It's of little difference to them, same with their surface-to-air missile sites. It would make little difference because they would use terrorism. They would do serious damage to our fleet in the Gulf.
Given all that, is it possible that the United States would allow Israel to attack when the president knows "we would be forced" to join the war on Israel's side?
Baer's response: "the President is up for re-election next year" and Israel is "truly out of control."
What happens when you see 100 F-16's approaching Iraq and there is a call to the White House [from Netanyahu] that says "We're going in, we're at war with Iran"? What does the President of the United States do? He has little influence over Bibi Netanyahu. ...We can't stop him. And he knows it.
It's a pretty frightening scenario, made infinitely more so by the fact that top Israelis (who have heard Netanyahu's thinking from Netanyahu himself) also see the future the same way. Those Israelis deserve a world of credit for sounding the warning bell loud enough that we would hear it and do something about it - although it's impossible to know if the people who matter are paying attention.
Actually, only one person matters: the president. If Israel bombed Iran tomorrow, Congress would forget all about partisan differences and run, not walk, to the House and Senate floors to endorse the attack and call for unstinting support for Israel. That is what Congress always does, and will always do so long as the lobby (and the donors it directs) are the key players in making our Middle East policies.
And who knows what Obama would do? So far, he has not exactly distinguished himself when it comes to standing up to Netanyahu.
But an Israeli attack on Iran would be different. It would endanger countless Americans (in the region and here at home, too). It would kill off any economic recovery by causing oil prices to skyrocket. It would engulf us in another Middle East war. And it would threaten the existence of the state of Israel.
This is something the President needs to focus on instead of being forced to nickel and dime with the likes of Eric Cantor and Mitch McConnell. How incredible that these two, and their right-wing allies, have our government tied in knots in their incessant effort to elevate themselves by destroying the President of the United States. When did Congressional leaders decide that the only thing that matters is not national security -- but their party's fortunes and, mostly, their own? It is sickening.
Follow MJ Rosenberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mjayrosenberg
John L. Esposito: The Chutzpah of Netanyahu Trumps the Audacity of Hope
Herman Cain: If You Mess With Israel, You Mess With the US
Iran, Lebanon should end US-Israel intervention in Syria: Bahonar
"One is how the intelligence was manipulated when we went into Iraq. I used to run Iraqi operations. I knew what was going on there. A narrative was written in national intelligence estimates that justified the war, and that happened in Britain as well."
http://thebrowser.com/interviews/robert-baer-on-being-spy
This piece was written by six former ambassadors to Iran from European countries: Richard Dalton (United Kingdom), Steen Hohwü-Christensen (Sweden), Paul von Maltzahn (Germany), Guillaume Metten (Belgium), François Nicoullaud (France) and Roberto Toscano (Italy)
As ambassadors to Iran during the last decade, we have all followed closely the development of the nuclear crisis between Iran and the international community. It is unacceptable that the talks have been deadlocked for such a long time.
In terms of international law, the position of Europe and the United States is perhaps less assured than is generally believed. Basically, it is embodied in a set of resolutions adopted by the U.N. Security Council authorizing coercive measures in case of "threats to the peace."
.
In principle, however, nothing in international law or in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty forbids the enrichment of uranium. Besides Iran, several other countries, parties or not to the treaty, enrich uranium without being accused of "threatening the peace." And in Iran, this activity is submitted to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. These inspections, it is true, are constrained by a safeguards agreement dating from the 1970s. But it is also true that the IAEA has never uncovered in Iran any attempted diversion of nuclear material to military use.
http://articles.latimes.com/print/2011/jun/09/opinion/la-oe-ambassadors-iran-20110609
Israel has the rocket capacity to strike targets in Iran, so it does not have to be the air force.
The use of a nuclear warhead against an already active nuclear facility should be very strongly discouraged by the international community. The keyword: radioactive fallout.
"....Prince Mohammed bin Nawaf, the Saudi envoy to the U.K. speaking to the London-based Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat, denied that report, saying such a move "would be against the policy adopted and followed by the Kingdom."
According to Asharq al-Awsat report, bin Nawaf reiterated the Saudi Arabia's rejection of any violation of its territories or airspace, adding that it would be "illogical to allow the Israeli occupying force, with whom Saudi Arabia has no relations whatsoever, to use its land and airspace."
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/saudi-arabia-we-will-not-give-israel-air-corridor-for-iran-strike-1.295672
"They are gearing up totally for the destruction of Iran," according to Dan Plesch, director of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy at the University of London. "US bombers and long range missiles are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours," he said. "The firepower of US forces has quadrupled since 2003," accelerating under Obama.
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20100702.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/9738643
http://www.amazon.com/Canticle-Leibowitz-Walter-Miller-Jr/dp/0060892994/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1311050923&sr=1-1
It scared the craap out of me when I first read it in the 60's and the prospect of it coming true scares me even more today.
As far as I know, that kind of criticism -- from THAT SOURCE -- is UNPRECEDENTED in Israeli history.
The fact is that no one knows what Israel will do vis-a-vis Iran, and no one knows what Iran will do vis-a-vis Israel. That seems to be the way the party's want it to be. And upon that realpolitik Rorschack Test, partisans feel free to impose their own interpretation driven by their own agenda.
Attack Natanz. With what??? F-16 and F-15? Fine
Or are there now drones in the inventory which could do the job?
Now let’s look at the combat range of the above mentioned aircraft and, please, the geography.
An attack on Iran by the IAF is only possible
A under violation of either/or both Iraqi and Saudi airspace.
B with the tacit or not so tacit approval of:
The Governments of Iraq, Saudi Arabia AND THE USA.
The problem here is the combat range of the aircraft involved.
Since Israel has 8 KC707 tankers and all strike aircraft involved in that mission need to have aerial refueling capacity, the “rest is diplomacy”
Saudi Arabia will be only too happy to render every assistance possible to someone who is willing to “cut the head of the snake off”.
Also, as mentioned earlier, bombing Natanz, a producing radioactive facility will release huge amounts of radioactive material into the atmosphere, how much is any ones guess. The prevailing wind pattern will, hopefully be part of the mission planning. Or does the “coalition of the willing” want to be at the receiving end of a nice nasty dust cloud that upsets the Geiger counters?
Israel will be well advised to consider the interests of at least three additional players in the area; Turkey, Russia and China. The latter happens to be Iran’s largest trading partner.
One would think that the World inhabitants would have had enough war by now. If memory serves me around the year 1900 Britain had colonized 2/3 of the World...and although the trade was fair enough the people fought for their eventual freedom. it will be the same again and again.
Does anyone know if they have developed a long range drone capable of carrying a nuke on a one-way trip to Iran?
…Nahum Barnea, a commentator for Yediot Aharonot, wrote on Friday that Mr. Dagan was not alone. Naming the other retired security chiefs and adding Amos Yadlin, who recently retired as chief of military intelligence, Mr. Barnea said that they shared Mr. Dagan’s criticism.
“This is not a military junta that has conspired against the elected leadership,” Mr. Barnea wrote. “These are people who, through their positions, were exposed to the state’s most closely guarded secrets and participated in the most intimate discussions with the prime minister and the defense minister. It is not so much that their opinion is important as civilians; their testimony is important as people who were there. And their testimony is troubling.”
http://whowhatwhy.com/2011/06/05/a-moment-to-seize-with-israel/
Well, here are just a few of the articles in Haaretz about the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran:
Israel and a possible U.S. attack on Iran
Is an attack on Iran a big risk?
Ya'alon: War with Iran inevitable
Bush: I'd understand if Israel decided to attack Iran
Israel's saber-rattling against Iran could backfire
Italy PM said 'not even Obama can stop Israeli attack on Iran', WikiLeaks cable reveals
Israel threat to attack Iran is not a bluff, deputy FM says
Israeli envoy to Australia: Cast Lead was a 'pre-introduction' to attack on Iran
The threat of attack on Iran is needed to deter it
Defense official: Israel readying for attack on Iran
IDF staged drills over Gibraltar, in preparation for Iran strike'
G-8 'fully believes' Israel will attack Iran, says Italy PM
Aluf Benn / Will Netanyahu attack Iran?
News / U.S. official says concerned Israel will attack Iran by end of 2008
etc, etc
Here's another bird of the feather. Not sure who is borrowing whose prose
2006, Mr. Dajani, S.F. Chronicle "Israel is planning an attack on Iranian military facilities."
Mar 05, 2007 " Dajani was already bracing “for some kind of strike in the near future – the question was whether it would be conventional or a limited strike on nuclear facilities.” http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=f2524229517e269934e8ea827ffaa0ce
2008--“ October Surprise. Israel attacks Iran sometime in October...." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamal-dajani/israels-october-surprise_b_127671.html Why shoulder 2009- "Writing on the Wall." Article.
Jun 2, 2008 ... “Will the U.S. Attack Iran?"
2009 October 2, 2009 "Since April of this year, the Israeli military has been preparing itself to launch a massive aerial assault on Iran's nuclear facilities. I am not being an alarmist, but the writing is on the wall."
Etcetera.