The Oxford Research Group in Britain reports that Israel is ready to raid Iran’s nuclear facilities but is not ready for the repercussions. The group is funded partly by the Ford Foundation, has issued earlier reports advocating negotiation with Iran and treating Hamas positively.
Israel has prepared itself with long-range bombers and armed drones.
Oxford predicts that Israel would strike not only completed nuclear weapons and missile sites, but also the factories, research centers, and university laboratories, in order to destroy the infrastructure that produces the weapons and the program’s managers in Tehran. These predicted strikes would hit service staff not directly involved in the nuclear program. Staff living quarters may be near enough to be struck, too. Israel would have to repeat the raid, as Iran rebuilds. A long war would ensue.
The nuclear program would be severely damaged, but the country likely would unify around its President Ahmadinejad.
How would Iran react? Oxford predicts that it would withdraw from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and would work to develop nuclear weapons. This time it would burrow deeper underground, in facilities it even now is constructing. Iran also would have its surrogates launch missiles at Israel.
Iran would use the attack as a pretext to punish uninvolved parties. Thus it would seek to close the Strait of Hormuz to oil tankers, causing prices to sky-rocket. It would strongly support militias fighting against the U.S.. (Arutz-7, 7/16/10).
The description of Oxford is made to caution readers that Oxford appears biased. This is especially true in view of its funding by the Ford Foundation, which definitely is biased and at least once had to promise to stop it, but has reneged, as reported earlier.
The report is daunting. Much of it makes sense. One point not stated in the news brief is what alternative Israel has to waiting for the anticipated Iranian nuclear attack. The report’s logic is peculiar about that, when it suggests that an Israeli raid would cause Iran to build nuclear weapons. What does Oxford think Iran has been doing, and why, does Oxford suppose, Israel would raid Iran’s facilities if Iran were not and showed the treaty supervisors that it is not?
The mention of Israel’s wider-ranging targeting of Iran’s nuclear military industry sounds improper but is a fair description of strategic bombing. What would be the point of destroying a couple of nuclear devices and their missile launchers, while leaving intact the factories that make them and the laboratories that design them? Service personnel present, who help make the facilities run, take their chances by working there. So long as Israel does not specifically target unskilled civilians, the raid as described is legal and sensible.
Would Israel survive the rain of tens of thousands of missiles fired by Iran, Syria, Hizbullah, and Hamas? What about others? How would it deal with those? Israel could have had a fairly effective anti-missile system in place now, but its officials chose the less ready, less effective, and costlier Iron Dome system. The people of Israel will pay the price of their officials succumbing to the lure of Iron Dome lobbyists. U.S. military procurement often is mercenary or political, too, rather than rational.
Israel would be paying a price for having let Hizbullah survive and Hamas survive. The same may go for the Palestinian Authority forces, trained by the U.S.. Appeasement then meant more deaths now. Appeasement of die hard enemies never works.
I have suggested before that the first raid would not be the last, so long as an imperialist regime rules Iran. Whether the country would unify around the regime we do not know, though it is probable. However, the regime has such a grip on power now, that it would not be dislodged before the regime could have nuclear weapons, anyway.
It is unfortunate that Iran would take out its anger on innocent parties. This is what comes of relying upon negotiations for too long and on sanctions too weak. Israel had urged the U.S. not to pursue Iraq, but to pursue the radical Iranian regime in the first place. President Bush wanted to, but his ideological opponents in the State Dept. sabotaged his efforts, and he was not a strong enough executive to insist in the face of media maligning of him and of the Democrats stalling all his nominations and legislation, including bills that would have ameliorated the financial crisis.
(For earlier articles on this, click here and here )