Former Mossad chief: Israeli attack on Iran must be stopped to avert catastrophe

[Scurrilous]

Meir Dagan speaks out against military offensive on Iran, says Defense Minister Barak makes it seem like Israel has less than a year to carry out an attack.

<snip>

"Former Mossad chief Meir Dagan warned Thursday against an Israeli attack on Iran , saying such a move would likely lead to a regional war involving Hezbollah, Hamas, and Syria.

"I'm concerned about possible mistakes and I prefer to speak out before there is a catastrophe," Dagan said in an interview with on the Israeli television program “Uvda."

"I think that engaging, with open eyes, in a regional war is warranted only when we are under attack or when the sword is already cutting against our live flesh. It is not an alternative that should be chosen lightly."

Dagan stressed that though he cannot predict how many casualties an attack on Iran would yield, he said, "I have to assume that the level of destruction, paralysis of every-day life, and Israeli death toll would be high."

He said that he has no interest in hiding his fervent opposition to an Israeli attack on Iran from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak."

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/former-mossad-chief-israeli-attack-on-iran-must-be-stopped-to-avert-catastrophe-1.399046

[oberliner]

1. This is the guy who has a pending arrest warrant for his actions in Dubai

That's why he is a "former" Mossad chief, right?

[azurnoir]

4. so a warrant has been issued over the assassination of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh

Thanks I wasn't sure guess Israel has admitted its guilt or why would Dagan be stepping down?

[oberliner]

6. Yep

Dubai has had one out since the assassination.

You don't think Israel/Mossad was involved?

If so, you might be the only one.

[MADem]

2. I don't think Israel will attack Iran.

They'll fund the Baluchis (Jundallah/PRMI, et.al.) and have them do a bit of targeted work for them. Or they'll bribe someone in the Rev. Guards to plant a bomb in the right spot.

All they need to do is muck up their medium range capability for the time being.

[azurnoir]

3. no what you mean is Israel will not openly attack Iran

but rather do it in a covert manner and I agree, Israel will not risk its military and citizens in an attack on quite so 'hard' a target.

[MADem]

5. Everyone is wringing their hands about a great big World War. I just can't see it happening.

Israel will do an in-and-out, if they do it themselves (least likely unless they have deniable dual nationals) or pay someone else with like-minded goals to do the work for them. If a nationalist or separatist group does the job, I'm sure Israel won't mind not getting any credit for funding the effort or providing the game plan/tactics/equipment, just so long as the goal is achieved.

There are no shortage of people, individuals and groups who have a bone to pick with the present Iranian leadership. There are a lot of people in Iran who don't think that all the Jews need to be pushed into the sea, either, making for a real opportunity for convergence of interests. Years ago, Iran had a vibrant Jewish community that lived harmoniously within the Persian culture. There are people still there who remember....

[oberliner]

7. Hope you are right, think you are wrong

I don't see how Israel doesn't take some kind of overt military action against Iran's nuclear weapons program some time in the not-so-distant future.

[Scurrilous]

8. Netanyahu’s history lesson hints at Israeli strike on Iran

Netanyahu's speech draws comparison between Ben-Gurion’s decision to found Israel and the decisions he is facing today to counter the Iranian nuclear threat.

<snip>

"A day and a half after U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned of the dire circumstances an Israeli attack on Iran could lead to, and in the wake of similar warnings issued by former head of the Mossad Meir Dagan, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a comparison between the decision of Israel's first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion to declare the foundation of the state of Israel, and a decision he, Netanyahu, faced today.

Speaking at the annual memorial Ben-Gurion, Netanyahu said that "great statesmen as well as friends of the Jews and of Zionism" warned Ben-Gurion that declaring a Jewish state in 1948 would bring an invasion of Arab armies and a "grave and difficult battle," Netanyahu said.

"Great statesmen as well as friends of the Jews and of Zionism" warned Ben-Gurion that declaring a Jewish state in 1948 would bring an invasion of Arab armies and a "grave and difficult battle", Netanyahu said.

"He understood full well the decision carried a heavy price, but he believed not making that decision had a heavier price," Netanyahu said. "We are all here today because Ben-Gurion made the right decision at the right moment.”

On Friday, U.S. Defense Secretary Leona Panetta used some of his strongest language yet to explain U.S. concerns about any military attack on Iran, citing Israeli estimates that a strike might set back its nuclear program by only one or two years.

The consequence, Panetta said, could be "an escalation" that could "consume the Middle East in confrontation and conflict that we would regret."

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/netanyahu-s-history-lesson-hints-at-israeli-strike-on-iran-1.399507

[bemildred]

10. Egotistical twit.

He seems to consider himself a great statesman. Bushlike, it is. I'll bet he is not planning on paying much of that "great price".

[Jefferson23]

9. American Enterprise Institute Admits The Problem With Iran Is Not That It Would Use Nukes

December 02, 2011 3:13 pm ET by MJ Rosenberg

Suddenly the struggle to stop Iran is not about saving Israel from nuclear annihilation. After a decade of scare-mongering about the second coming of Nazi Germany, the Iran hawks are admitting that they have other reasons for wanting to take out Iran, and saving Israeli lives may not be one of them. Suddenly the neoconservatives have discovered the concept of truth-telling, although, no doubt, the shift will be ephemeral.

The shift in the rationale for war was kicked off this week when Danielle Pletka, head of the American Enterprise Institute's (AEI) foreign policy shop and one of the most prominent neoconservatives in Washington, explained what the current obsession with Iran's nuclear program is all about.

The biggest problem for the United States is not Iran getting a nuclear weapon and testing it, it's Iran getting a nuclear weapon and not using it. Because the second that they have one and they don't do anything bad, all of the naysayers are going to come back and say, "See, we told you Iran is a responsible power. We told you Iran wasn't getting nuclear weapons in order to use them immediately." ... And they will eventually define Iran with nuclear weapons as not a problem.

Hold on. The "biggest problem" with Iran getting a nuclear weapon is not that Iranians will use it but that they won't use it and that they might behave like a "responsible power"? But what about the hysteria about a second Holocaust? What about Prime Minister Netanyahu's assertion that this is 1938 and Hitler is on the march? What about all of these pronouncements that Iran must be prevented from developing a nuclear weapons because the apocalyptic mullahs would happily commit national suicide in order to destroy Israel? And what about AIPAC and its satellites, which produce one sanctions bill after another (all dutifully passed by Congress) because of the "existential threat" that Iran poses to Israel? Did Pletka lose her talking points?

Apparently not.



remainder in full: http://politicalcorrection.org/fpmatters/201112020008

[Scurrilous]

11. Risk of Israel/U.S. strike on Iran has tripled: Barclays Capital

<snip>

"The chance of a military strike on Iran has roughly tripled in the past year, the senior geopolitical risk analyst at Barclays Capital said on Thursday.

New York-based analyst Helina Croft, writing in a note titled 'Blowback: Assessing the fallout from the Iranian sanctions', said even increased sanctions without an all-out military strike was increasing the risk of a spike in oil prices.

"We still contend that the risk of either an Israeli or US strike on the Iranian nuclear facilities remains low, but it has risen, in our view, from 5-10 percent last year to 25-30% now," Croft said."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/45603601