THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY is a compelling factual history of neoconservatism and its influence on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East during the first decade of the twenty-first century. Click on image above for details.

Tuesday, March 20, 2012


There has for a long time been a lot of talk of Israel launching a unilateral strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. There has even been talk of Israel launching a unilateral strike without warning the US in advance.

Such talk is nonsense. It is merely part of a “good cop, bad cop” strategy designed on the one hand to demonstrate to the world how anxious Israel is about Iran’s so-called ‘nuclear weapons program’, while on the other hand creating the illusion that US President Obama is the reluctant protector of Israel against Iranian ‘threats’ and retaliation.

The reality is this: It would be utterly impossible for Israel to launch a truly unilateral strike against Iran, and to even suggest that Israel would launch such a strike without warning the US in advance, borders on downright stupidity.

The reason it would be impossible for Israel to strike ‘unilaterally’ is simple; everything Israel needs in order to strike Iran – from jet fuel to bombs, to anti-retaliatory measures – comes from the US. Indeed, not only would Israel not be able to unilaterally strike Iran, it would actually need US connivance to do so – no matter how discreet the Israelis wanted to be about protecting Obama from blame of initiating war.

At the moment, Obama needs to tread a very careful path. On the one hand he can’t afford to ‘pre-emptively’ go to war against Iran for the Israelis – at least not this side of an election – but on the other hand, he can’t afford to be seen not supporting Israel – at least not this side of an election when the Jewish vote will be important for him.

But all this is simply for political show. The Israelis really couldn’t care less who the President is, just as long as whoever it is, he ultimately supports Israel. Sure, they would prefer a Republican President to get up at the next election since the Republicans are far more militantly sympathetic to the right-wing Israeli cause and, if a Republican President wins the election, the Israelis will be assured of support from the people of America since the Israeli cause is a major platform of the Republican campaign. But, if Obama is returned, the Israelis know that they can rely on him as a nothing to lose President for support in helping them attack Iran.

At this time, however, the “good cop, bad cop” strategy is in play for the sake of public opinion, but behind the scenes, as I have mentioned elsewhere on this blog, everything is already in place and ready to go.
It’s just a matter of finding – or creating – the right opportunity. That opportunity might arise at anytime, but one thing everyone can be assured of; there will be absolutely nothing ‘unilateral’ about it.


For the latest on Australia's leading racist see the Andrew Bolt: Ultra Racist blog.


Aletho News said...

Is Obama needing the "Jewish vote" or is it actually Jewish campaign finance"

Damian Lataan said...

He needs the Jewish vote not so much to get him over the line, but more because if he can secure the majority of the Jewish vote, it will put him in a better position with regard to his Israel policies.

Despite his stance re Iran, I think when push comes to shove Obama will be there like a shot to protect Israel. The difference between Obama and any one of the Republican candidates is that Obama will resist war until Israel forces his hand whereas the Repblicans - especially if they think they have a mandate if they win the election - will go in boots an' all before even Israel does.

I'm not so sure that Obama really needs Jewish campaign money though, if it comes his way, I'm sure he'll take it.

Anonymous said...


Another factor I'd not been aware of until recently concerns what 'The Economist' magazine reported concerning high strength concrete developed in Iran that may make even the most powerful U.S bombs such as the biggst 13 + tonne bunker busters ineffectual!.

They can only be carried by U.S bombers, which obviates the F-15I dual role aircraft as its the largest strike aircraft Israel has and is limited to the much smaller 1 tonne class 'bunker busters' such as the BLU-109 and its offshots.
There is much concern and alarm that the huge GBU-57 huge bombs may not be effective against this Iranian concrete if its used to protect buried nuclear facilities, although 'softer' targets would be vulnerable.
What is your assessment of this added 'defence' that Iran has in relation to the attack or not equation.
I hope this helps and I welcome your thoughts mate.

Nylon Shirt

Damian Lataan said...

A good point, NS. The use of the 13tonne bomb, or the lack of its use, will be the benchmark that determines how serious the US/Israelis are about destroying Irans 'nuclear weapons program'. The 1 tonne bombs aren't going to do the job.

My view is that the US/Israelis know that Iran's nuclear program is not a threat but the threat is being used as a casus belli to launch an attack aimed at regime change. An attack against Iran will be kicked off with attacks against its nuclear facilities but I doubt if the really big bombs will be used and, if they do, it'll only be for show.

Anonymous said...

Yes, its beyond be just what Israel is hoping to achieve with this war talk.
Any halfwit can see that Israel simply doesn't have the capacity to inflict enough damage on Iran or its nuclear facilities to be worth the effort (allowing for inflated egotism and their usual 'holier than thou' conceit too), thus only he yanks can do the job for them.
However the Iranian super concrete is a new mitigating factor that according to reports in 'Aviation Leak' suggest doubt that even the big 13 tonne bombs may not work, such is the strength of the concrete and the other passive defences of the underground nuclear facilities.
The yannks are even talking about sequential use of the big bombs on the same target which means many aircraft near a target at one and complete air superiority as even 'stealth' bombers over Iran can't be guaranteed, thus any use of the giant 13 tonne bombs means many bombers and fighter escorts as well as destruction of nearly all Iranian ground defences, which automatically means NOT a simple few air strikes and they all go home for tea, but a sustained war over time ala Iraq.
Thats what they really mean and aren't admitting and of course its useless to have the media think or ask questions about this inescapable logic.
Meanwhile 'The Economist' story is fascinating including Australian tests of the Iranian concrete in the 1990's too!.

Cheers mate.

Nylon Shirt

Damian Lataan said...

NS, Israel is hoping that, once it's made the first strike, the US will come in a finish the job.

You're right; Israel does not have the capacity to do the job themselves. They will be relying on the US to do the job. The Israelis know that and the US know that - which can only mean that, when war starts, it will not be 'unilateral', it will be a well planned joint operation made to look like an Israeli unilateral strike.

Like the Iraq war, the whole thing has been one big set-up.

Anonymous said...

Strategic miss, Damian.

Israeli air force has access to Azerbijan air bases:

Didn't count on that one, did you?

Damian Lataan said...

I’m not really sure what your point is, Anonymous.

This article is about the inability of the Israelis to act unilaterally against Iran. My simple thesis is that, far from being able to attack Iran unilaterally or even without the US being aware of an imminent attack, Israel will need the help and full logistical support of the US – regardless of where they launch their attack from.

The ‘strategy’ of initiating a war against Iran in order to provide a casus belli for the Israelis to attack Hezbollah and Hamas while the US finishes off what the Israelis began against the Iranians remains the same – only the tactical detail of where the initial attack is launched from changes.