By enhancing the credibility of a fantastic threat, Netanyahu and his American Likudniks are creating a bargaining chip out of thin air, that Israel will “concede” in return for little or no concession on the two-state solution, that Americans are expected to press on them.

Called “the mother of all neo-con institutions,” the Center for International and Strategic Studies (CSIS), which includes Zbigniew Bezezinski, Henry Kissinger, and Zalmay Khalilzad, among its 35 or more Trustees (all with links to oil, defense, and/or Israel), has released a Study on a Possible Israeli Strike on Iran’s Nuclear Development Facilities [pdf], by Abdullah Toukan. The report, CSIS publicises, “provides an independent assessment of Israel’s options for striking at Iran’s facilities, … [and] a detailed analysis of Israeli capabilities, possible flight paths, sorties requirements, battle damage capabilities relative to target hardening, and the other details of possible Israeli strikes.

This helpful act of Christian charity, on the eve of Israel’s new prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Washington Sunday 17 May, is not lost on Reuven Pedatzur of Ha’aretz, who writes in a 16 May 2009 article, Here’s how Israel would destroy Iran’s nuclear program:

Alleged Syrian Reactor Bombed by Israel

[BEGIN QUOTE]   Israeli government ministers and Knesset members who will help make the decision about whether to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities do not have to wait any longer for a preparatory briefing by the Israel Air Force.

They can read about all the possible scenarios for a strike on Iran, and about the potential risks and chances of success, in a study by Abdullah Toukan and Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

Never before has such an open, detailed and thorough study of Israel’s offensive options been published. The authors of the 114-page study meticulously gathered all available data on Israel’s military capabilities and its nuclear program, and on Iran’s nuclear developments and aerial defenses, as well as both countries’ missile inventory.

After analyzing all the possibilities for an attack on Iran, Toukan and Cordesman conclude: “A military strike by Israel against Iranian nuclear facilities is possible … [but] would be complex and high-risk and would lack any assurances that the overall mission will have a high success rate.” [END QUOTE;  Click here for the full article; reproduced at PakAlert.]

Saner Voices

The timing of the CSIS report, just before Netanyahu’s visit to the United States, and even its appearance, despite a rising chorus of saner voices, is remarkable. Among those who have sought to stop this madness are:

• Mohamed El-Baradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who (according to an AFP report from Berlin) told Der Spiegel in an interview to appear Monday 18 May 2009, that “Attacking Iran would be insane” and went on to say that “This would trigger an explosion across the whole region and the Iranians would immediately start to construct a (nuclear) bomb and would be assured the support of the entire Muslim world.”
• A month ago, US Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, reacting to Israeli President Shimon Peres’ reference to Ahmedinijad of Iran, “We’ll strike him,” Netanyahu description of the alleged Iranian nuclear program as an “existential threat” to Israel, and increasing suggestions that Israel might attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, warned that such a strike would have dangerous consequences, and asserted that Tehran’s acquisition of a bomb can be prevented only if “Iranians themselves decide it’s too costly.” (Yet, US officials say that while in their private conversations they are discouraging such a course, “they would never deny Israel’s right to act in self-defense”!)

Conclusion

On balance, it would seem that by enhancing the credibility of a fantastic threat, Netanyahu is creating a bargaining chip out of thin air, that he will concede in return for lesser concessions by Israel on settlements, the two-state solution, right of return, and Jeruslem, that Americans are said to be somewhat more serious about these days.