Breaking: Top Iran Officials Recommend Preemptive Attack Against Israel

Radarsite ^ | 22 Oct 08 | Roger W. Gardner

[Roger W. Gardner]

With a special thank you to WR for the heads up

From Haaretz.com

Last update - 12:05 22/10/2008 Top Iran officials recommend preemptive strike against Israel

By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent

Senior Tehran officials are recommending a preemptive strike against Israel to prevent an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear reactors, a senior Islamic Republic official told foreign diplomats two weeks ago in London. The official, Dr. Seyed G. Safavi, said recent threats by Israeli authorities strengthened this position, but that as of yet, a preemptive strike has not been integrated into Iranian policy. Safavi is head of the Research Institute of Strategic Studies in Tehran, and an adviser to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. The institute is directly affiliated with Khamenei's office and with the Revolutionary Guards, and advises both on foreign policy issues.

Safavi is also the brother of Yahya Rahim Safavi, who was the head of the Revolutionary Guards until a year ago and now is an adviser to Khamenei, and holds significant influence on security matters in the Iranian government. An Israeli political official said senior Jerusalem officials were shown Safavi's remarks, which are considered highly sensitive. The source said the briefing in London dealt with a number of issues, primarily a potential Israeli attack on an Iranian reactor. Safavi said a small, experienced group of officials is lobbying for a preemptive strike against Israel. "The recent Israeli declarations and harsh rhetoric on a strike against Iran put ammunition in these individuals' hands," he said. Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz said in June that Israel would be forced to strike the Iranian nuclear reactor if Tehran continues to pursue its uranium enrichment program. Safavi said Tehran recently drafted a new policy for responding to an Israeli or American attack on its nuclear facilities.

While the previous policy called for attacks against Israel and American interests in the Middle East and beyond, the new policy is to target Israel alone. He added that many Revolutionary Guard leaders want to respond to a U.S. attack on Iranian soil by striking Israel, as they believe Israel would be partner to any U.S. action. Safavi said that Iran's nuclear program is intended for peaceful purposes only, and that Khamenei recently released a fatwa against the use of weapons of mass destruction, though the contents of that religious ruling have not yet been publicized. Regarding dialogue with the United States and the West, Safavi said Iran's decision would be influenced by the results of the U.S. presidential elections next month, as well as by the Iranian presidential elections in June and the economic situation in the Islamic Republic. Safavi also said that a victory by U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama would pave the way for dialogue with Washington, while a John McCain presidency would bolster Iran's extreme right, which opposes dialogue. If conditions are favorable following the U.S. election, he said, Iran could draw back from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's declaration that "the nuclear case is closed," and put it back on the agenda.

Safavi said he believed that U.S. sanctions on Iran have run their course, and that there would be no point in strengthening them. Tehran would therefore demand "firm and significant" U.S. measures in return for stopping uranium enrichment. He also said Ahmadinejad is not guaranteed victory in the June 2009 elections, particularly given the dire economic situation in Iran. Still, Iranian experts believe his only real competition is former president Mohammad Khatami, who has not yet joined the race. Safavi said the inflation rate in Iran is similar to that before the 1979 Islamic Revolution, but that unrest among civilians today is not as strong. This is because the current government uses oil revenues to help the poor, he said.

----------------------------------------------

A note from Radarsite: This is certainly not the first time Israel has faced the possibility -- and the actuality -- of a preemptive military strike from its friendly Muslim neighbors. Thus the existential threat to the only democracy in the entire Middle East escalates. And as demonstrated in those passages above which Radarsite has highlighted, Iran is trying to manipulate the American elections as well, by playing the Obama card: America, they are warning us, if you elect Obama we just might, might, put our nuclear weapons programs on hold. But if you are foolish enough to elect McCain then expect the worst, expect all hell to break out. I wonder, if I were an Obama supporter, how would this make me feel? Perhaps a little wary? Perhaps a slight tinge of shame for supporting a candidate whom our enemies endorse? Of course not. Obama supporters are totally immune to this type of honest examination.

In some ways, an Iranian preemptive strike against Israel would make sense. In 1941 the Japanese decided -- quite rightly -- that the only chance they stood of defeating the United States militarily was with a surprise preemptive strike, a strike so devastating that it would at once 'level the playing field'. And as we all know it almost worked. There is however one major difference between the critical situation today in the Middle East and that of America and Japan in the 1940s. In that bygone era, the world was shocked by the immorality of Japan's Sneak Attack, an act of treachery for which most of the civilized world never forgave Japan. But today the Middle East has long ago moved far beyond such moral qualms. Morality has no place at this table. With the possible exception of those liberal Israel Governments, whose delusional attempts to incorporate morality into the equation when dealing with their Muslim enemies have only served to put the Israeli people in more immediate danger.

If this presidential election of ours were ruled by straightforward rational considerations, the mere fact that a fanatical terrorist regime like Iran endorsed one of our presidential candidates would be enough to discredit him and disqualify him. But, alas, we are not living in rational times. And it seems all we can do is watch this monumental drama play itself out and hope, somehow, hope for the best. Or -- God give the Israelis the moral courage to reach the right decision. - rg

[LottieDah]

Pre-emptive attack on Israel? That must mean that Imanutjob cancelled his order for I Heart Israel t-shirts.

[auusn]

Barry will talk to them. Don’t worry /s

[ichabod1]

I don’t know why nobody pays any attention to Israel stories unless the bombs are actually falling, and I mean big bombs, mortars don’t even rate.

[brooklyn dave]

Thanks for posting. Now the Israelis and the Iranians both have been talking about bombing each other for a while. Iraeli has said that if nothing is done about Iran accomplishing its nuclear mission it will go in and bomb whatever it could themselves. How much hype are in their statement? Now I am not saying that the Israelis have no right to be concerned or that their worried are ludicrous, I am just saying that some of the verbiage might hyped up as a warning. Now, the Jew-hating Iranian mullocracy has been making all kinds of statement against Israel for years and even more so since the rise of Ahmadinejad and also since their nuclear program has really gotten underway. I tend to doubt the mullahs would do anything so rash. Not because they’re such compassionate folk, but because of the fallout that will come upon Iran from both Israel and the US. I would like to think that the thing dearest to the mullahs’ hearts is greed dressed up in a theological tutu. Possibly they figure they could get away with something if Obama becomes president. If Obama wins and Iran made a pre-emptive move against Israel after the innauguration, by nature, Obama would be in the Oval Office with one finger in his snout and the other up his backside contemplating what would be the most PC thing to do. This is where AIPAC comes in. (Now I believe that AIPAC shouldn’t be above scrutiny or criticism, but in this scenario I would support them whole heartedly)—They would drag every legislator by the proverbial castanas into taking some drastic action against the mullahs, no matter what the cost or what the rest of the world thinks. A President Obama wouldn’t have much of a choice. In short, Iran would be a no mans land if the US decides to act on behalf of Israel—not even the Russians will stop us.

[A_perfect_lady]

Pre-emptive attack on Israel? That must mean that Imanutjob cancelled his order for I Heart Israel t-shirts.

Au contraire, he doubled it. They'll sell like hotcakes afterward, you know.

[LottieDah]

I also heard that if Obama wins, Imanutjob is going to open Iran up to all Palestinians and call the province Obamistan in honor of his good friend Barrack Obama.

[rbmillerjr]

Breaking Analysis:

“Please bomb us so oil will go back up”

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh !

[Cap74]

Yup.

No way Iran throws the first punch here - they don’t have to. Israel may have to. Iran knows it can count on the majority of world opinion to condemn Israel for launching a pre-emptive strike. I think Iran, knowing that an Israeli strike right now without full U.S. support would be only marginally effective, is trying to goad them into a fight on Iran’s terms.

That said, an Iranian strike could trigger a conflict that quickly escalates and spreads. I have a tinfoil devil on my shoulder suggesting this could mean the Iranians already have an operational nuke.

[arthurus]

I think that Iran already has attempted such a strike and it was aborted by Somali pirates, perhaps with the connivance of Mossad or CIA. That radioactive freighter should have been the trigger for a massive attack on Iran.

[Cap74]

Hmm.

Interesting point and nice P.J. tagline.

[kahana]

I wish they would attack us, it would give us an excuse to mop the floor with their asses.

[arthurus]

The tag line quote is much older than PJ.

[GoLightly]

Iran's been doing it by proxy & has been rewarded for it. Seems to me, they want a Zero win, cuz they know they'll get more of the rewards without the risk & work.