Q: Which raises the question of the United States or Israel bombing Iran's nuclear facilities.
A: (long silent pause) … I can express no views on that.
Q: The Israelis say they are facing an existential crisis.
A: No question, they are at risk.
...Q: But in the Gulf, if the U.S. and/or Israel bombed Iran's nuclear facilities, Iran has formidable asymmetrical retaliatory capabilities?
A: But let me repeat, they cannot conquer you. Hezbollah cannot conquer Lebanon. They can create trouble for the non-Hezbollah Lebanese. So micro actors can cause a lot of trouble for your friends, but they can't eradicate them.____UPI
What Lee is saying, is that yes, Israel is at deadly risk from Iranian nuclear weapons. If it were his decision to make [for Israel] he would seriously consider bombing Iran [but not invading]. He would expect retaliation and significant losses. But at the end of the day, he appears to say that the need to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons ability exceeds the risks of retaliation.
The price of oil would shoot through the roof--probably over US $200 a barrel, temporarily. There would be significant economic short term difficulties in the US, Europe, and the rest of the west. Russia and China would be upset, but not enough to retaliate in the open. Behind closed doors is another matter.
The Islamic world would outwardly condemn Israel and the US, while inwardly the Sunni world and moderate Shias would be relieved to not have to face their own nuclear Islamic Civil War.
Iran is only 50% ethnic Persian, and most of them are very unhappy with the leadership of their country. If the west waited long enough, perhaps the leadership would be overthrown anyway. But then, you could have said the same about Hitler in 1930s Germany.
These decisions have serious consequences, either way. Acting, or not acting.
No comments:
Post a Comment