21 thoughts on “Ronen Bergman Predicts 2012 Israeli Attack on Iran – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. ” In 2006, Hezbollah alone caused over 100 Israeli deaths with its rocket barrages.”

    That is not true. The number of civilian deaths caused by rockets was 41 (this was also the total number of civilains who died in the war) . 158 soldiers died in the war, including 12 who died after their gathering area was hit by a rocket.

    Hezbollah Fired 4200 Rockets of all types.
    3500 120 mm Katyusha Rockets
    500 120 mm LR Katyusa Rockets
    And 200 Medium Range Missiles and Rockets such as the Fajr-3,Fajr-5, 220 m”m Rockets, 302 m”m Rockets, Zilazal 1, Zilazal 2, and Zilazal 3.

    Generally speaking Rockets are a very inaccurate weapon estimated 5% accuracy.

    At the time the war began, Hezbollah had about 14,000 rockets and missiles.

      1. So you are claiming that Iran will cause death using Anti-Missile tanks ?

        Or a regional war ? against whom ? Saudi ? Egypt ? Kuwait ?
        UAE ?

        When one comes to evaluate the possible Iranian response, one needs to consider the possible way’s at which they can retaliate, Anti-Tank missiles isn’t one of them, neither are katyusha rockets, or any other type of rockets.

        To evaluate the Iranian response one would need to understand the difference between the fuel type propulsion systems, the number of available launcher, missile accuracy etc.

        You are promoting Hysteria, which you can’t substantiate.

        1. Iran has at least 400 missiles that can reach Israel, & they’re not Saddam’s SCUDs. Hezbollah killed 158 Israelis in the last war. Hamas might attack as well. Perhaps Syria. How many wars can Israel fight at 1 time?

          1. You think that if Hamas and Hezbollah will attack Israel will play nice ? Personally i do not think that any of them will attack.
            The political situation in Lebanon changed, Hezbollah is part of the government these days. Nasrallah still hides in his bunker. Hezbollah will not risk bringing a full scale destruction to the Lebanese infrastructure.

            Syria – seems to me Assad will not stay in power much longer. the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood movement in Syria will not participate in any Iranian Shenanigans, Here goes that option.

            so we are left with the Iranian abilities, and there the issue is not the number of missiles but the number of launchers, and what type are they…AKA mobile or stationary, the propulsion system (Solid-fuel or Liquid-propellant)
            How many can they launch simultaneously, how many can Israel intercept.
            saying they have 400 missiles, it’s a meaningless number in the broader context.
            Iran is bluffing that’s the reason that despite all the statements the Abe Lincoln carrier group (CVN 72) went through the strait’s last Sunday and the Iranians didn’t make a sound.

          2. Hezbollah will not risk bringing a full scale destruction to the Lebanese infrastructure.

            Says who? You? ANd what makes you an expert? They won’t risk bringing full scale destruction to Lebanon just like they didn’t risk it in 2006, right?

            Of course, Israel’s money is on putting in power a Syrian regime that will play nice with Israel. And you have it on good authority that those who take over from Assad will do so? Please don’t insult us with your painting a picture favorable to yr own right wing pro Israel interests that are nothing more than fantasy.

            So we aren’t just left with Iranian abilities since there’s no way that none of their allies will support them when the mutual enemy of all of them attacks one of them.

            Bibi & Barak & you believe Iran is bluffing. Dagan & virtually the entire senior military intelligence apparatus inside Israel believe otherwise. I know whose view I trust more…

          3. For someone who claims to be covering the conflict closely for so many years, you do miss a lot of stuff.

            Hezbollah , the man himself(nasrallah) stated as back as 2006 that if he knew that kidnapping the soldiers would lead to war he would have never done that.
            you think he will risk Lebanon destruction for the Iranian’s ?
            not a chance.

            Syria, it’s obvious that the Alawi minority who’s controlling the state at the moment will be toppled with a Sunni regime (Majority and Democracy goes hand in hand don’t they ?). You think Saudi and Egypt will give way for Iranian influence ?

            as for the assessments of the IDF, you are wrong.

            and i suggest you’ll look up in Maariv what Ex. COS Gabi Shkenazi said about attack in Iran yesterday.

            I would appreciate if instead of the usual personal attacks, you’ll actually concentrate in some substance.

          4. And Dan Halutz & Olmert said almost the same as Nasrallah. Safe to say that neither side got what they expected or bargained for. The same will hold true for an Iran- Israel war w the exception that Iran will fully expect to battered & will be. Israel will not know what hit her I’m afraid.

            I don’t know what government will rule Syria. But Israel’s wars against Syria have killed Sunnis & Alawites & enmity against Israel will surmount ethnic differences.

            YOU are the one wrong about the IDF & intelligence circles. Three past Mossad chiefs oppose war. Immediate past Shabak, Mossad & IDF chiefs including Ashkenazi & Gantz oppose war.

            I would argue substance if you offered any. Unfortunately, you don’t.

          5. Funny as Dan Halutz himself states the exact opposite from what you claim, as you can see if you’ll actually do some reading.

            אכן, היה אפשר להמשיך ולבחור במדיניות “בת היענה”, לטמון את הראש בחול, ולחשוב שהטילים ימשיכו להחליד. אפשר היה להציע להסתפק בתגובה נקודתית. אפשר היה להמליץ גם על המתנה והתארגנות ארוכה לפעולה, שבמציאות שלנו סביר שלא הייתה מבוצעת. בזמנו חשבתי אחרת. גם היום, עם אותם נתונים בדיוק, הייתי חוזר וממליץ על אותו דפוס פעולה. דפוס פעולה אשר מבוסס על פעולה רחבה באש, ואשר לוקח בחשבון גם אפשרות למהלך קרקעי.

            We could have continue ignoring reality thinking their missiles will continue to gather rust. I could have recommended a limited response. I could have recommended to act after a preparation period. at the time i thought otherwise and recommended a wide spread fire action, today with the same data i would have recommended the same course of action.

            Dan Halutz – October 2009

            (page 46)

          6. Are you arguing that Israelis approve of the Lebanon war or think it was a good thing that they fought it? Because you know that this is false that most Israelis think it was a disaster, some even a disaster of epic proportions. You as well as I know that I can bring scores of such media accounts including the views of Israeli political & military leaders confirming this.

            The tragedy is that if/when Israel attacks Iran the damage to Israel will be far worse than during Lebanon. Meir Dagan, Yuval Diskin, Gabi Ashkenazi, Efraim Halevy & numerous other senior Israeli leaders agree & oppose an attack as does Benny Gantz.

          7. Most Israelis feel that the second Lebanon war was justified, although they are not too happy with the IDF’s performance. That been said, the war was apparently sufficient to in deterring Hezbollah from attacking Israel’s northern towns and cities. As a result, it brought a certain amount of quiet to Lebanon. That is, until the next time Hezbollah decides that it wants to kill some Jews.

          8. Hezbollah doesn’t kill Jews. It kills Israelis. Non Jewish Israelis were killed in the last war. Or does their death not count.

            The question isn’t whether Israelis thought thread justified. The question is the level of damage Israel’s enemies can inflict, which is substantial. Anyone like Barak claiming otherwise is lying to himself & Israelis.

          9. First, the subject is not what Israeli’s think but rather what Dan Halutz and Ehud Olmert think, and what you claimed on their behalf was wrong.

            Second, most Israeli’s see the Lebanon war as a failure, but that has nothing to do with the primary decision of going to war. Most Israeli’s supported that, and still support that to date.

            Third, as for your claims about the Iranian retaliation, you didn’t provide any information to substantiate that. Just a lot of words which are based on what you read in the media, which is extremely shallow. You should look up what Prof. Gen Ytizhak Ben-Israel wrote on the subject, you should look at what other folks whit substantial knowledge are saying about the same.

            And last, don’t twist my words, i ( no one in Israel) thinks that a war, any type of war, is like a walk in the park.
            the argument is what’s worse for the people of Israel: Act now and delay the Iranian nuclear weapon development allowing the people more time to topple their regime, or act later after the Iranians will posses nuclear weapons.

            To you – living 1000’s of miles away – the answer is clear. To me living in Israel, the answer is diff. You are committed to the US interest. We are committed to the Israeli one. They may not overlap.

          10. No,the original question was how much damage Israel will face. You argue falsely very little. I argue correctly a great deal & support my claim by noting the suffering caused to Israel by Hezbollah during that war, which will be magnified many times by the addition of Hamas, Iran & possibly Syria to the mix in the next war. You argue entirely unpersuasively that none of them will cause any serious harm to Israel.

            I weary of this conversation. Do not reply. Move on to another thread.

  2. Richard – I agree with the overall premise of your post, but several points, I believe, need clarification.

    Ya’alon is not a “serious policymaker” – he is a minister in Bibi’s government that is far removed from any position of influence. Most everybody in Israel is highly dismissive of him and he is generally considered an idiot.

    Barak’s assertion that there will only be 500 Israelis killed is not a delusion, but rather an outright lie. Barak knows that the numbers will be higher, likely by an order of magnitude or more, but chooses to ignore this in public.

    Your account of the start of the 1967 war is accurate, indeed Israel started the war, but this is hardly a revelation – it is documented in numerous texts. But, two points you have to take into account are (1) Israeli military is mostly reserve based, therefore maintaining it at a high alert level for extended period of time had devastating effects on the Israeli economy. And (2), you neglect to mention the Egyptian blockade of the Tiran straits to Israeli merchant navy traffic, which, by itself, is an act of aggression in defiance of international law, UN treaty and, IIRC, security council resolution. This action gave Israel the right to react to the Egyptian aggression.

    Lastly, a key point to think about is that Netanyahu’s paymaster, his biggest contributor by far especially now that he has driven Ron Lauder away, is Sheldon (“buy me a newspaper”) Adelson, who recently also became Gingrich’s sugar daddy. Considering Netanyahu’s meddling in Republican politics, I would not put it beneath any of them to try and time an Israeli attack on Iran to October 2012 in order to embarrass Obama and cause him to lose the elections due to spike in oil prices and other geo-political consequences. As a side note, on Charlie Rose today, Zbigniev Brzezinski theorized that the main goal of an Israeli attack on Iran is to cause Iran to retaliate against the US and therefore drag the US into the conflict.

    1. HT: “(1) Israeli military is mostly reserve based, therefore maintaining it at a high alert level for extended period of time had devastating effects on the Israeli economy.”

      It is almost laughable to read someone using “war by bundy” as a valid excuse to attack another country i.e. Israel simply had to attack Egypt when it did, because all those soldiershad to be back at work on Monday……

      HT: “(2), you neglect to mention the Egyptian blockade of the Tiran straits to Israeli merchant navy traffic, which, by itself, is an act of aggression in defiance of international law, UN treaty and, IIRC, security council resolution”

      Ahem. There are a couple of points to make about that claim.

      In no particular order…..

      The navigatable part of the Strait of Tiran runs entirely through Egyptian territorial waters, so if Nasser decides that he doesn’t want any Israeli-flagged vessels to sail through his waterway then int’l law says that he is perfectly entitled to make that decision. He is, after all, the “sovereign power”.

      The claim that Egypt was “aggressively” blocking the Israeli merchant navy from entering Eilat rather runs foul of the fact that there were no Israeli-flagged vessels plying the “Eilat route”.

      That’s why Israel didn’t take up the USA’s suggestion of running a few Israeli vessels thru the strait under US Navy convoy i.e. they simply didn’t have any vessels that they could use to put Nasser’s “resolve” to the test.

  3. “The Mossad chief went over the CIA officer’s head and flew to Washington where he received a tacit green light from Defense Secretary Robert McNamara to attack.”

    This is quite at odds with the way President Johnson tells the story in The Vantage Point. The US was quite prepared to honor Eisenhowewr’s 1957 commitment on the Gulf of Aqaba and sought to form an international naval squadron to break the blockade. Apart from the US and Britain, the Netherlands and Australia volunteered for this. At the same time Johnson put his hope on further diplomacy and he conveys the impression that this could have been successful if the Israelis hadn’t decided to attack.

    I quote:
    “On the evening of May 26 I met with Israel’s Foreign Minister Abba Eban, who had just flown to Washington. Our conversation was direct and frank.Eban said that according to Israeli intelligence, the United Arab Republic (UAR) was preparing an all-out attack. I asked Secretary McNamara who was present, to give Mr.Eban a summary of our findings. Three separate intelligence groups had looked carefully into the matter, McNamara said, and it was our best judgment that a UAR attack was not imminent. “All of our intelligence people are unanimous,” I added, “that if the UAR attacks, you will whip hell out of them”

    Abba Eban is an intelligent and sensitive man.. I wanted him to understand the U.S.position fully and clearly , and to communicate what I said to his government. “The central point, Mr.Minister,” I told him, “is that your nation not be the one to bear the responsibility for any outbreak of war.” Then I said very slowly and very positively: “Israel will not be alone unless it decided to go alone.”
    He was quiet and I repeated the statement once more.

    In the meantime, Robert Anderson was in Egypt on business. He met with Nasser on May 31. Their conversation produced an arrangement for UAR Vice President Zakaria Mohieddin to confer with us in Washington on Wednesday, June 7.His visit would have provided another opportunity for personal diplomacy, but it never took place. His trip was canceled by the outbreak of war. We would never know what purpose, if any, that meeting might have served.
    During those trying days I used all the energy and experience I could muster to prevent war.

    I was opposed to using force until I was persuaded that every other avenue was blocked. And we were moving rapidly to explore every possibility.. The week of June 5,1967,would have been one of intensive diplomacy and congressional consultation, if we had had our way.
    Besides Great Britain and the United States, two other nations had agreed to take part in a naval task force – known informally as the Red Sea regatta – if events proved this necessary.The Dutch had expressed their intention to us in writing. Harold Holt, Prime Minister of Australia, assured me personally in a visit to Washington on June 1 that his country would assign two of its fastest cruisers to the joint task force. We will never know how successful that “regatta” might have been. But I am convinced that Congress as well as the President would have honored President Eisenhower’s 1957 commitment on Aqaba …

    That was the weekend the Israeli cabinet decided to move …They may have feared that the week ahead would bring about a significant relative weakening in their military position … Our military men did not share this fear, and their judgment of relative Israeli-Arab strength proved amazingly accurate as the battle turned out…

    Nonetheless, I have never concealed my regret that Israel decided to move when it did.”

    Johnson makes then a lame attempt to defend Israel against the “oversimplified charge of Israeli aggression” because Arab actions had been so threatening – but his own words seem to invalidate that argument.

    At any case there is no talk here about ‘tacit’ agreement by McNamara (as if the decision were up to him) to an Israeli attack. It also seems to be pretty clear that, since Israel was not willing to wait for that naval squadron to take action, that Aqaba did not rank very highly as a casus belli.

    Johnson might have distorted matters here but I think it more likely that that tale about McNamara’s tacit agreement has been made up.

  4. what does it truly matter how it starts , when it starts ,who starts it and what ever the outcome !!!! , mankind as a whole are just a bunch of idiot’s who think each has the answer to all of our problems!!!! , we have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that ” we ” are incapable of governing ourselves without killing each other or wanting to rule over each other !!!!! , the “CREATOR” of it “ALL” including us, is about to humble this whole stinking “CESSPOOL” that we have created and prove that without “HIM” in charge ” we will end up with dead , all of us!!!!! sooooooooo!!! keep fighting among yourselves and prove “HIM” correct !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *