re: Ann: MAK: Third Supplementary Target'...
Seals hi,
"Not convinced they have anything to gain by attacking, per the first article. Seriously risks tipping the balance in the middle east against them - they have a fragile accord as it is with neoghbouring states."
From what I've read all the options are bad. The main justification for attacking in Netanyahu's mind perhaps is that Iran's bullying will be much harder to deal with when it has a nuclear capability, so if they can overthrow the regime everybody except the Iranian uneducated rural poor, particularly those who periodically have to visit the "big city" and experience the shock of dealing with their more sophisticated urban compatriots, will be better off. All that seems to have happened in the last 33 years is that a problem in difference of life styles and customs between the educated middle class in Iran and the rural poor has been "solved" by forcing the urban citizens to adopt lifestyles closer to those lived out by Iran's rural inhabitants. This may have contributed to the brain drain and almost certainly to the high number of Iranian tourists visiting Turkey (they need a break from the micro meddling in their lifestyle by their Govt. perhaps?), so really in short, what was an internal problem has been externalised up to the border with a nuclear armed Israel (not very clever?). I see no option but for a resolution of the problem except by fighting. Even sober people like David Sanger (New York Times), author of "Confront and Conceal" think there is a 25% to 30% chance of an Israeli attack before the US Presidential election. I think it is more like 50% (before the election) and 90% if Romney wins (Romney and Netanyahu were former work colleagues?).
The Iranian leadership just has not got the message: there are no successful outcomes for Iran. France is probably going to start implementing safe corridors in Syria. Karim Sadjadpour explains in a 37 minute telephone-in video (below) that Bashar Al-Assad is finished. Despite the title of the programme he talks a lot about Iran in it. (But it is rather long, so maybe you don't have time to listen to it).
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/307673-6
For a shorter debate on the reasons to attack Iran/not to attack Iran there is a video here (4 mins long). Bret Stephens (Wall Street Journal) argues with Karim Sadjadpour.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiO2_0BSOB8
The actual business of militarily defeating Iran may be a lot easier than some people think: once the oil refineries, the power grid and the telephone system have been destroyed I expect Iran's ability to respond will be more limited. The Arrow anti missile defence system in Israel is the latest US technology (it has never had a real test of its capabilities in a "300 Shahab Three missiles raining down on Israel all at once" scenario). The Iranian air force is not even a match for that owned by the tiny (compared to Iran) UAE. The Israeli reputation for daring and unpredictability may surprise everyone. The one hope that it does not happen is that Iranians figure it out for themselves and rise up and do something before it is too late. The cue to do that might be if Obama has to ask for congressional approval to go to war. An overwhelming vote on its own should make the Iranian leadership extremely worried.
I simply can't understand how our Board can be so stupid as to think the West is going to tolerate any more nonsense from Iran. I think Jordinson should be arrested for economic incompetence exchanging Mehdiabad for Wonarah. He is really just too stupid for words, IMO.
I've not posted Senator Lieberman's interview in which he states the chances of an attack on Iran are high: he is a long-time supporter of Israel, so he would say that?
Since Obama came to office Iran has gone from having enough nuclear material for one bomb to enough for five. They are accelerating their installation of centrifuges. They talk about it here: (the speaker oddly agrees with you: the risk- return from an attack is not favourable, he says) - I do not accept the West is going to be defeated by Iran, but our Board does by its actions?
(20min delay)