Hartej Foundation: America dragged to the Israeli war against Iran

Hartej Foundation: America dragged to the Israeli war against Iran

Administrator

Foundation published Harritej U.S. (Heritage Foundation) last month, a study researcher James Phillips (James Phillips), an expert on the Middle East under the title: «Israeli strike protective against Iranian nuclear sites: Results for the United States» Phillips tries in this study shed light on the possible consequences of an Israeli attack against Iran and reactions expected from Iran. It thus illustrates the importance of Maysmah «the Obama administration for decisive action now to reduce the possibility of Iran's response to the Israeli strike potential». Researcher starts by saying that Israel has repeatedly expressed a desire to attack Iran's nuclear sites if diplomacy fails to persuade it to reverse its current path. The Israeli air force organized exercises enormous widely in the skies of the Mediterranean Sea in June 2008, during which Israeli warplanes attacks on targets located at a distance of over 870 miles, which is roughly the same distance that separates Israel from the uranium enrichment facility in Natanz, Iran. In the past year, Israeli officials leaked details of a secret Israeli air strike against a convoy for the transfer of Iranian weapons in Sudan, was heading to the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt to be smuggled through the tunnels to Hamas. Israeli officials have stressed that this reflects the willingness of Israel to carry out another air long-range against Iran if necessary. In late June 2009, an Israeli submarine crossed the Dolphin class (Dolphin) Suez Canal for the first time and entered the Red Sea, followed by warships from the model walked (Saar) in July of the same year. This reflects the passage of these pieces Israeli military through Egypt's Suez Canal, Egypt is involved with Israel in fear of Iranian threats (especially after the discovery of large cell belonging to Hezbollah (, willing to cooperate with Israel to counter the threats posed by Iran, as alleged by Phillips, who also confirms what is said about that the head of the Israeli intelligence service Mossad, met Saudi officials to reassure after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Saudi Arabia Stngady for Israeli warplanes in the event of transit Saudi airspace to attack Iranian targets. It is worth mentioning that Israel launched air strikes and preventive measures against nuclear facilities In a number of countries hostile to it, such as Iraq in June 1981, and Syria in September / September 2007., but in the case of Iran, Israel is facing difficulties, including the geographical dimension of the objectives, in particular to the countries located between Israel and Iran (Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Saudi Arabia) will object to the use of its airspace to Israel, at least publicly. In addition, the Israeli strikes would be badly hampered Iran's air defenses, as well as long-distance separating them from the goals, as well as the need to provide aircraft that will attack the fuel tankers through the air. Chen Israel could strike one surprise, however, that the success of such a strike depends on a number of factors, including: the quality of information on the Israeli Iranian nuclear facilities; capabilities of Iran's air defenses; precision strikes and the ability of Israeli bombs to penetrate the Iranian targets. Israel may be forced to launch a number of strikes in a row to inflict greater damage to infrastructure Nuclear. Will be determined by the timing of the Israeli attack, according to expert estimates about the limits of the effectiveness of such attack. Analysts believe the Israelis that Iran has enriched uranium, enough to build a bomb within 10 months, but after another year of uranium enrichment will need Iran to half the time to build a bomb, which means that the clock is ticking quickly declared the start of the completion of Iran's nuclear program, and the end of the option Preventive Israel . Iranian reaction Is expected to be retaliation for any Israeli strike on Iran's multi-dimensional and a ripe and violent. It is expected that Iran bombed Israel's ballistic missile Shahab-3 - medium term, with the possibility that those missile warheads loaded with radioactive, biological or chemical. He Masaada to «war cities» similar to those that occurred during the Iraq war - Iran 1980 - 1988, while rivals launched hundreds of SCUD missiles land - the land of the other cities. It is also likely to respond to Iran with air attacks suicide probably stems from bases in Syria, or that the attacks from drone aircraft launched from bases in Lebanon, or Syria, or from ships close to the coast of Israel. In addition to direct attacks on Israel, it is likely that Chen Tehran attacks is directly carried out by organizations such as «Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and Hamas», all of which are armed with missiles of Iran, as well as that Hezbollah receives arms and training, financial support and even guidance ideological by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Tehran is likely to play well to attack U.S. interests in the region in retaliation for an Israeli strike. It will assume the Iranians inevitably the presence of American support (implicitly at least) of the Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, then it can be targeted to Iran of U.S. troops in Iraq by dedicating support for groups that proxy such as the Mahdi Army or even penetrate through some elements of the Revolutionary Guards to the limits Iraq and attack Americans directly. On the other hand, the Iranian regime has instigated Shia Afghans against U.S. forces in Afghanistan, or even throwing its weight behind the Taliban, which Iran has already recently by providing them with limited quantities of weapons and military equipment. Might as well be government officials, diplomats and U.S. military vulnerable to attacks by Iranian-backed all over the world, especially in Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. International responses After this introduction, moving Phillips to review the positions of international forces from possible Israeli strikes on Iran, and provided as follows: First, Russia: Moscow is going to be the biggest winner of any Israeli war - Iran, in particular that it has invested its strategic alliance with Tehran to become the last market for the import of Russian military technology and nuclear weapons, and also to counter U.S. influence in the region. On the other hand, Russia will achieve significant economic gains from the expected rise in global oil prices that will accompany any military strife between Israel and Iran. However, this evolution with that would be a threat to Moscow, as the works of hundreds of scientists and technicians Russians in the compound of the Bushehr nuclear Iran, of course they may be the victims of any Israeli attack on these facilities, which would be a strong motivation to Moscow to put pressure on the Security Council of the United Nations to impose sanctions Israel. Second, China: It is expected that Beijing is working - and decisively - on a quest to protect their investments and economic oil and geo - political growing in Iran, through denounced Israeli actions and support the imposition of sanctions against it in the Security Council. Thirdly, the Arab States: from the public, will be the majority of the Arab countries to condemn the Israeli pre-emptive attack as new evidence Israeli hostility to the Islamic world. But Phillips believes that the majority of these countries (with the exception of Syria's ally Iran) would welcome a secret attack. As it, though did not prevent the risk of an Iranian nuclear bomb on a permanent basis, would limit Iran's threats to its Arab neighbors smaller. Fourth, Europe: will the majority of European countries - with the exception of Britain and France - to criticize the Israeli attack is likely, will suffer as a number of European countries, serious economic consequences that will occur as a result of the jump in world oil prices as a result of this attack. What now for the U.S. position? The limits of diplomacy Obama administration believes that the erosion of domestic political support for the Iranian regime after the unrest that followed the presidential election last June, Tehran will make militants more open to negotiations regarding the nuclear issue. But in fact, become the chances of reaching a diplomatic solution to the nuclear crisis is very limited, in the wake of the re-election of Ahmadinejad. The United States enjoys the advantage of the geographical distance from Iran compared to Israel, then they are less vulnerable to any Iranian nuclear attack. However, they must take into account the security of its ally, Israel. Phillips says that the Obama administration must be conscious of the fact that the United States will inevitably become mired in crisis, Israeli - Iranian potential. And then you should start now in this administration planning to cope with confusing results for the reactions of Iranian potential. Scalable to any Iranian threats to U.S. national security and to protect U.S. interests. It is in this regard, calls on the United States to be played, including the following: First, the recognition of «Israel's right to self-defense» (...) in the face of Maysmah Phillips «Islamic dictatorship hostile form as well as a threat to U.S. interests and stability in the region». Hence, you should not operate and Washington to prevent Israel from taking any action it deems necessary to confront the existential threats that are exposed to it. The United States does not have the power to ensure that no exposed Israel to attack Iranian nuclear in the future, then we must not betray the trust of its ally Washington «democracy» across the restriction. Despite the fact that the Israeli attack on the Iranian nuclear program would entail a threat to U.S. interests in the Middle East, but these risks are limited compared to the Iranian nuclear threats. Second, prepare for war with Iran, in light of the fact that the United States may be subject in all cases to attack by Iran after the Israeli strike, it makes sense that Washington is considering Israel's participation in the pre-emptive war against Iran. But it is unlikely that the Obama administration follow this approach. In spite of this, management must be ready to respond to any Iranian attacks, which entails the preparation of contingency plans include the deployment of a sufficient number of troops in military bases and U.S. embassies in the Middle East; securing installations and tankers and methods of oil pipelines in the Arabian Gulf, and the targeting of Iranian ballistic missile , as well as the targeting of all relevant sites with nuclear weapons. And perhaps lead the preparations for this war, especially with the clarification that Washington will not restrict the hands of Israel, went to the Iranians about the truce. Third: the deployment of a missile defense equipment to defend Israel and other allies of the United States from Iranian missile attacks. The Ministry of Defense has already publishes band radar sophisticated model X (X-Band radar) in Israel in support of missile defense systems the U.S. and Israel, as Israel deployed missile defense systems of models Arrow (Arrow (, and Patriot PAC - 3 (Patriot PAC- 3). Additionally, should the United States to prepare for the deployment of defensive systems other developed in Israel. well would be very useful to the U.S. Navy's deployment of warships from the model Aegis (Aegis) on the coast of Israel and other U.S. allies to help repel any Iranian ballistic missile attack. Fourth, should the United States conducts frequent drills on the mechanisms of missile defense with Israel and its other allies in the region. Included Juniper Cobra exercises (Juniper Cobra) shared with Israel, which was conducted in 2009, about 2,000, as well as 17 warships belonging to the U.S. Navy. Has been trained to repel a missile attack on Israel from all directions. The most important feature of these exercises in that it provided a personal experience for members of the U.S. and Israeli armies in the activation command and control system integrated to defend Israel in the face of any possible missile attack, an experience that is necessary to maintain the effectiveness of the missile defense system. However, still the United States and Israel need to control the most advanced missile threats, which may include the design of countermeasures to confuse the Iranian missile defense systems current. Must be submitted to the Obama administration's deployment of missile defense systems stationed on land or sea in the Gulf region major, to be training in cooperation with the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (a coalition formed in 1981 by Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE to provide a mechanism for collective defense in the face of Iran's threats and other threats (. Fifth, improve the capacity of deterrence. For deterring Iran from pursuing its threats to attack American targets in response to any Israeli pre-emptive attack is possible. The Obama administration should make clear to Tehran to attack American targets will make it even worse for them, since the U.S. would respond strikes devastating not only against military targets and Iranian nuclear, but also against the leaders of the regime and its institutions, particularly the Revolutionary Guards, and intelligence, and internal security forces. Sixth: Tahedoh the expected effects of the oil crisis. Iran has threatened to disrupt oil shipping through the Strait of Hormuz during the crisis. Which will put about 16-17 million barrels of oil a day are at risk, or about 2 percent of global oil consumption, which will lead to an unprecedented increase in oil prices and then a new shock to the global economy. It is possible also that Iran operations against Arab installations to disrupt global oil markets. Should be preparing the United States and its allies to take immediate action to counter these attacks and to repair any damage to the pipeline or oil infrastructure, as well as the production and transfer of alternative sources of oil to consumers disturbed. Must mobilize Washington alliance of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and the Gulf Cooperation Council, Japan, Australia, India, and other countries concerned to deploy naval and air forces to prevent the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, and reduce the economic impact of the crisis of oil. Seventh: preventing arms sales to Iran. Washington and its allies to do everything in their power to deprive Iran of arms imports of foreign, and particularly the impending deal for missiles Russian S - 300 (S-300 (, which may push Israel for early Drepettha. Should also operates international efforts to prevent Iran from transfer weapons to Hezbollah and Palestinian groups that pose a threat not only to Israel, but to the stability of Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan. Eighth: veto any Security Council resolution. Must be issued by the U.S. veto against any decision of the Security Council of the United Nations has condemned Israel without condemnation of Iran's long history of care and the threat of terrorism and animosity against the Jewish state (in the words of Phillips). We have the smartest system Ahmadinejad tensions with Israel continuing threat to wipe Israel from history and other threats that amount to incitement to genocide. And Washington should make clear to the members of the Security Council who refused to veto the U.S. response to the weakness of the United Nations on Iran's nuclear program is what helped to sow the seeds of war, the Iranian - Israeli. Phillips concludes by saying: «Obama administration put an alternative plan to contain the possibility of failure of the strategy of the link (engagement strategy) to persuade Iran to refrain from continuing to approach the current nuclear. It is necessary to be aware that Tehran's allies and friends of Washington will work to protect their own interests, especially Israel, which faces the greatest threat from Iran.