To Bomb or Not to Bomb

This seems to be the key question as Iran has rejected yet another overture from the West, Russia and China. It is obvious by now to all fair minded people that the Islamo-Nazi regime in Tehran is playing games and stall tactics in order to gain time. Deluded lefties prefer to close their eyes (and minds) and call this "Iran's efforts to resolve the crisis by diplomatic means".

As the perception that Washington now prefers diplomacy over confrontation with Tehran sinks in, Israel's options are shrinking. Israel has purchased 90 F-16I fighter jets and will receive 11 more by the end of 2009. These jets are capable to operate in Iran. Israel has also bought 2 more Dolphin submarines - in addition to the 3 it already has - capable of firing nuclear-armed warheads.

The foreign media also likes to speculate that Israel already has intelligence cells actively operating inside Iran (no such reports have been confirmed).

Israel estimates that the mad regime in Tehran can have enough enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb by next year, which prompted Shaul Mofaz (Israeli Deputy Prime Minister and possibly next Prime Minister) to say last week that "if Israeli, U.S., or European intelligence gets proof that Iran has succeeded in developing nuclear weapons technology, then Israel will respond in a manner reflecting the existential threat posed by such a weapon".

A nuclear armed Iran is a threat for the entire civilized world, whether this world realizes it or not. However, for Israel, it would be an existential threat. Israel does not have the "luxury" to ignore such a threat, live with it or dismiss it (like Obama, who said that Iran does not pose a danger because it is a "small country").

Iran, of course, maintains that its uranium enrichment plan is meant for "electricity generation" only, but apart from the "anti-war" lunatics and those who'd actually like to see a terrorist nation posses the Dooms Day Weapon, no one in his right mind can believe that.

Since Fuhrer Ahmadinejad is not going to stop, the question is what to do: To Bomb or Not to Bomb?

After destroing the Iraqi reactor and more recently, the Syrian one, Israel has sent a clear message that it will not tolerate its sworn enemies getting nuclear capabilities and is willing to use force preemptively against any target.

"For Israel, Iran is not a target that cannot be achieved," said Maj. Gen. Aharon Zeevi-Farkash,
former head of Israel's army intelligence. However, Israel will most likely seek and need the US approval for such a move.

Bush administration officials last week assured visiting Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak that the U.S. has not ruled out the possibility of a military strike on Iran.
And the U.S., aware of Israel's high anxiety over Iran's nukes, is also hooking Israel up to an advanced missile detection system known as X-Band to guard against any future attack by Iran.

If Israel attacks, it will face the Russian-made Tor-M1 surface-to-air missiles purchased by Iran only last year.

Military experts say an Israeli strike would require manned aircraft to bombard multiple
targets and heavy precision bombs that can blast through underground bunkers. It is widely assumed that Israel posses bunker buster bombs.

Elite ground troops could also be necessary to penetrate the most difficult sites, though Israeli military planners say they see that option as perhaps too risky.

US has far more superior capabilities to strike at Iran's nuclear facilities. The United States has cruise missiles that can deliver high-explosive bombs to precise locations and B-2 bombers capable of dropping 85 500-pound bombs in a single run.

Besides the "how" and "when", the aftermath of such an attack is also a big question mark.

Iran could halt oil production and shut down tanker traffic in the strategic Strait of Hormuz, which could send the price of crude skyrocketing and wreck Western economies.

It could stir up trouble for the U.S. in Iraq and activate its militant proxies in both Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, from where Israel could come under heavy rocket attack. It could also strike Israel with its arsenal of Shahab-3 long-range missiles — something Israel is hoping to guard against through its Arrow missile defense system.

Whether an attack on Iran would be worth its cost would depend on how long the nuclear program could be delayed, said Chuck Freilich, a former Israeli deputy national security
adviser and now a senior fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School.

"For a five to 10-year delay I would say yes," he said.