President Romney | Hebrew media worries about 2015
If Romney will be elected as the Republican presidential candidate, it will be the first time in American history that two not-exactly-Christian candidates reach the final stage. Romney openly belongs to a sect. Even if accepting Obama’s claims regarding his beliefs, then he was member of a church with Calvinist theology. These churches were defined as erred from their beginning in the 16th Century, due to their unacceptable interpretation on the issue of free-will and other topics. I doubt very much Mr. Obama has the foggiest idea what I am referring to; he already proved he is not Christian at all. This is important because non-Christian leaders are more likely to declare war. In this odd scenario, Israel supports Romney.
This is true to the extent that the Hebrew media is already worried about possible actions by President Romney in 2015 (see picture above). If Romney wins, he probably will submit to Jerusalem on the issue of Iran. “Mr. Romney has suggested that he would not make any significant policy decisions about Israel without consulting Mr. Netanyahu” was said in “A Friendship Dating to 1976 Resonates in 2012,” an article by Michael Barbaro published on the front page of the New York Times on April 8. His analysis is based on the personal friendship between Netanyahu and Romney. If Romney is elected, he may decide to attack Iran on behalf of Israel. Obama is a different story; recently he thwarted Israel from attacking Iran independently, at least until the November 2012 presidential elections. What will happen the day after the elections if Obama wins? Will Israel attack Iran?
The day before yesterday, April 26, I summarized in Isra-bluff the public arguments of the leading Israeli leadership on Iran, and reached again the conclusion that Israel is not planning a direct attack on Iran. The following day, Haaretz top defense analyst—Amos Harel—indirectly supported my analysis by claiming that “the accusation that Netanyahu and Barak are infected with messianic feelings over Iran is whispered every so often by senior officials in the security services. However, this is the first time that an official, who is not part of a rival political party, uses such wording in public.” In other words, the political leaders are using a “hold me back” bluff, while the security services leading officers unlikely preach for abstinence. In that article, I summarized that we are not witnessing inner wars in the Israeli leadership, but a conscious effort to create disinformation on the plans of the State of Israel. The sharp inversion of the typical roles (warring generals, cautious politicians) is a further attempt to create confusion and disinformation.
“Not true! Israel can win such a war!”
Despite this, the media is full with descriptions of possible Israeli attacks on Iran. The amount of details is astonishing. A recent article in the Hebrew media went into details on the pilots that the Israeli Ari Force will use for an attack on Iran. The 100 or so pilots are to be selected from the reserve forces and not from the regular army. Then it added which information they would have access to prior to the operation, so that readers would know what to ask the pilots next time they meet them at a Tel Aviv coffee shop. The point is that as far as a former IDF officer can judge, the descriptions were exact. The IDF favors reserve forces for attacks, while keeping its regular forces ready for the ex0pected retaliation (see The Cross of Bethlehem).
Detailed plans of the subsequent attack are also readily available. I found one detailing three possible routes for the planes, and which included even details on the refueling procedure along the long flight. Again, the three proposed routes match the pattern of IDF operational plans, which at their early stages ask for three alternatives. This is quite amazing. Armies do not publish their operative plans, not even by using proxies. Instead of considering these (and other similar articles) as a proof that Israel can perform and win such an attack, these look to me as another layer in the complex disinformation campaign Israel is running. Israel has two options for attacking Iran, and neither one includes planes.
The Israeli Attack on Iran
Following the American presidential election in November, Israel will face a tough period. In December, the NPT Conference on the Middle East will take place; Israel’s aggressive nuclear program will be its main topic. This may force Israel to risk an attack on Iran, especially if Obama—who is openly considered an unfriendly president in Israel—will win (see West and Iran Step Closer to Agreement; Israel Worried). The only chance Israel has to win such a war is by utterly destroying the decision taking bodies of the Iranian regime. The Islamic Consultative Assembly, the Guardian Council, the Presidency, the Supreme Leader institution, the military headquarters; all must be gone so that no one would be able to block Hormuz or order the bombing of Tel Aviv. These institutions are in Tehran. These relatively few and concentrated targets would become the target not of Israeli Air Force planes, but of Jericho-style missiles. It must be missiles, because the long fly time of planes would give the Iranian regime a much better chance of performing defensive steps.
That option is unlikely to be implemented, because it would almost for sure lead to the obliteration of the State of Israel in the subsequent missile attack; Israel’s nuclear second strike capabilities won’t change that. Instead, Israel may stage a false flag attack on the USA, attempting to trick it into retaliating against Iran. Israel has already attacked American forces in the past—for example the USS Liberty in 1967—thus there is no reason to believe it would restrain from that in the future. The main targets will be the 5th Fleet in the Persian Gulf and the 6th Fleet in the Mediterranean Sea. The reasons for choosing ships and not one of the many American land bases in the area are clear. First, attacks on ships are more efficient than on land bases. Once hit, the entire ship operability is damaged, while a land base may survive even with several damaged buildings. Then, Israel is steadily incrementing its access to NATO’s naval codes (see NATO-Israel Joint Drill: Access Codes); that means it would be easy for Israel to interfere NATO communications on real time and create a credible false flag event. There is little doubt that the Israeli leadership will prefer this option above any other.
Can the USA block such a hoax? Oddly enough, it will be extremely difficult for the American government to stop such an event, because of the insider status of Israel in NATO, despite it not being a member of this organization. Moreover, Israel and the USA share communications on a military level; this would further facilitate the Israeli deception. In this era, the most efficient defense is rendering such attack useless is by widely advertising it beforehand; articles as this one are a proper beginning for this. Only if the Israeli leadership will understand that it will be seen personally responsible for the event and will face international justice, only then it may refrain from the crime. Mr. Romney, Mr. Obama, do we agree on this?