The Coming Strike on Iran and Why This Christian Feels Israel Needs to Do It, Not the USA
Full text of Hasan Rouhani’s speech at the UN
‘Iran seeks to resolve problems, not to create them,’ Iranian president says. ‘Nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction have no place in Iran’s security and defense doctrine.’
BY TIMES OF ISRAEL STAFF September 25, 2013, 2:00 am
Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech at the United Nations
by Yaakov Lappin
October 7, 2013
Lappin states: With no military threat, Iran has no incentive to stop its nuclear progress. Iran might well conclude that the sanctions could disappear in the course of endless rounds of diplomacy. No one in Israel seeks war, but a central tenet of its own defense doctrine is that Israel cannot depend on any external power to deal with existential security threats.
Lappin gives some insight into what a strike would entail as he describes an Israel Air Force capability that includes over 100 F15i and F16i fighter jets that can fly to Iran and return without the need to refuel. They did develop refueling capabilities as well. Israel also possesses long-range Jericho ground-to-ground missiles. In the event of a Hezbollah counter-attack, new weapons systems and an effective strategy have been developed to neutralize the threat.
Note: Yaakov Lappin is a journalist for the Jerusalem Post, where he covers military and security affairs.
I believe that Iran is on the way to developing nuclear weapons. Correctly, they see that nuclear weapons give them the best assurance that they will never be invaded by their enemies since the cost of a nuclear strike by Iran would be formidable and cause their enemies to think twice before acting. Their nuclear development at current levels make no logical sense otherwise.
One would think a peaceful program would not get the world's attention, U.N. resolutions to stop them and sanctions to punish the regime. Think about the number of times that real threats got ignored by the U.N. Why would the U.N. go to these lengths if the threat of a suspected nuclear program wasn't real?
I also think that this is Israel's fight, not one for the United States. The U.S. has expended much time, treasure and precious human lives in the Middle East in the past decade. Our national security interests are to support Israel's right and ability to defend itself but not to do the work of defending her. The distinction is important. In a previous address to the U.N. (see video below), Netanyahu talked of a "red line" that Iran must not be allowed to cross, however, less noticed was an apparent attack strategy and list of potential targets that Israel could do on its own, especially considering material and know-how provided by the U.S. and modified by Israel, let alone added to by Israel's own ingenuity.
There he said, "For Iran, amassing enough enriched uranium is far more difficult than producing the nuclear fuse. For a country like Iran, it takes many, many years to enrich uranium for a bomb. That requires thousands of centrifuges spinning in tandem in very big industrial plants. Those Iranian plants are visible and they’re still vulnerable [emphasis mine]."
I think the message in his red-line speech is fourfold: 1) to Iran's leadership - we can and will do it if you force us to do so; 2) to common Iranians - we will attack the problem, not you the people; 3) to the world - our attack will not be destabilizing to the Middle East but akin to the attack on the Iraqi reactor in 1981; 4) to the USA - if you don't, we got this
So, there you have it. Israel can do it. Israel should do it. And Israel will do it. The U.S. role should be to forestall any consequences at the U.N. for any attack by Israel and to continue to supply Israel with the needed know-how and material to get the job done. The only way out is for Iran to heed Netanyahu, Israel's Ronald Reagan, and stop and dismantle the program. Anything short will cost Iran much. And any price to the Jewish state is considered worth the cost to prevent a nuclear Iran. Watch and pray, my friends.