Is Netanyahu signalling a pre-emptive strike?

COPY of pre-blog email (as in ‘About’).:

Re below – developments in this serious saga with Iran warrant our closer observation. Therefore, I’m widening circulation beyond friends who watch out for Israel.
Whether current developments are a psychological ploy or not, at long last this deeply critical issue has moved away from Israel’s’ go-it-alone option and into international involvement.
For further details on yesterday’s news please see Joel’s subsequent fuller report hereOf relevance on this side of the ‘pond’, I espied today’s Guardian headlines, UK military steps up plans for Iran attack, following last night’s special report from Debka’s inside sources.  These suggest that Israel’s role may be purely that of tactical readiness for self-protection rather than active involvement.
From: Richard Barker
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 3:18 PM
To: Undisclosed Recipients
Friends – The following development has been expected for some time, but I’d draw your attention to Joel’s personal observation in 3rd para below.
Also, this afternoon Debka reports the conclusion of an Israeli-Italian air exercise as well as testing a new nuclear-capable missile and extensive preparations in central Israeli for missile attacks.  The region’s getting hotter…
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 12:37 PM
Subject: [New post] SPECULATION GROWING ABOUT POSSIBLE ISRAELI FIRST STRIKE AGAINST IRAN: Netanyahu warns Israeli parliament about Iran nuclear threat, says “a security philosophy cannot rely on defense alone.”

SPECULATION GROWING ABOUT POSSIBLE ISRAELI FIRST STRIKE AGAINST IRAN: Netanyahu warns Israeli parliament about Iran nuclear threat, says “a security philosophy cannot rely on defense alone.”

by joelcrosenberg

Israeli PM Netanyahu speaking before the Knesset on Oct. 31, 2011.

Speculation in Washington and the Middle East continues to grow about a possible Israeli preemptive military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. This is in part because Iran is getting closer to building nuclear warheads, in part because of remarks Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke to the Knesset on Monday about the Iran threat, in part because former Vice President Dick Cheney recently speculated about an Israeli first strike, and in part because the Obama administration is publicly pressuring Israel not to hit first.

“If I had to summarize what will happen in our region, I would use two terms: instability and uncertainty,” Netanyahu told his parliamentary colleagues Monday. “The collapse of Gaddafi’s regime in Libya, the bloody incidents in Syria, the American forces leaving Iraq, the new government in Tunisia, the upcoming elections in Egypt and many other events – these are all expressions of the immense changes occurring around us. These changes can increase the instability within these countries, and the instability between countries….A nuclear Iran would pose a terrible threat on the Middle East and on the entire world. And of course, it poses a great, direct threat on us too….A security philosophy cannot rely on defense alone. It must also include offensive capabilities, which is the very foundation of deterrence. We operate and will continue to operate intensely and determinately against those who threaten the security of the State of Israel and its citizens. Our policy is guided by two main principles: the first is ‘if someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first,’ and the second is ‘if anyone harms us, his blood is on his own hands.'”

I’ve never heard Netanyahu discuss those two principles before (RB’s emphasis) — they certainly lay the moral and strategic framework for preemptive military action, both against the Hamas terrorists that are firing rockets and missiles at Israel from Gaza, and against state enemies such as Iran.

Such developments echo major plot points in my new political thriller, The Tehran Initiative, but this is not fiction. Could a major new war in the region be coming later this year, or early next? It’s too early to say, but there is little question that senior Israeli officials are now actively weighing such an option, or that the Obama administration is deeply opposed. What would a Republican president do differently that President Obama to neutralize the Iran threat? That remains to be seen as none of the GOP contenders has yet offered a major policy address focused on the Iran issue.

Your comments are warmly welcome (NB: Comments Caveat & Prophecy Protocol on homepage sidebar).

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s