IF ISRAEL ATTACKS IRAN, 2012 MAY REALLY BE UPON US!

August 24, 2012

Last week we had a leaked document outlining Israeli plans for an attack on Iran that was intended to be used by Prime Minister Netanyahu to reassure his cabinet that the attack would go "smoothly". The document, revealed by Richard Silverstein, an American journalist, claimed that Israeli casualties would be kept to a minimum. Of course minimum is a relative term; and what about the civilian casualties on the other side? Not to mention the military losses...

Now, British author and historian Michael Burleigh, is predicting that an attack is immanent, as Israel shows signs that it has run out of patience.

An attack within the next two months would give Israel the upper hand in as much as it would force Obama to support it, or risk losing the elections that are due in early November. If he did lose, we all know what Mr Mitt Romney would do. Also to Israel's advantage is the fact that many of the Arab neighbours who could have posed a threat, are too busy with their own internal problems to risk getting involved.

What Israel is forgetting, however, is that wars never do go "smoothly"; no, not even those that are won in six days. The consequences linger. Have they really reached a point of no return, where further dialogue would be meaningless? Surely not, especially when there is so much that can go wrong. What if the USA did decide to help? And what then, if China, or Russia, or both, decided to butt in? We take so much for granted and so easily forget how things can suddenly go up in smoke. Besides, if Iran did get the bomb, it does not necessarily mean that it would use it. A nuclear Iran would more probably create the balance of power that is now missing in the Middle East. It would make such impending wars a lot less likely.