Trump Advisors, Israeli Leaders Urge Iran Attack

After yesterday’s post reporting that the IDF is preparing battle plans for an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, today the Wall Street Journal reports that Trump’s military-security advisors are advocating the US also attack Iran:

The president-elect’s transition team is devising what it calls a “maximum pressure 2.0” strategy against the regime…the sequel to his first-term approach centering on strict economic sanctions. This time, the president-elect and his aides are fleshing out military steps that could be central to its anti-Tehran campaign…

In his Time Magazine Man of the Year interview, he was asked if he’d be willing to go to war against Iran, considering it allegedly sought to assassinate him. His answer was a “reassuring”: “Anything can happen.”

His hawkish advisors are fleshing out a military scenario that will (supposedly) bring Iran to its knees:

One path involves augmenting military pressure by sending more U.S. forces, warplanes, and ships to the Middle East. The U.S. could also sell advanced weapons to Israel, such as bunker-busting bombs, strengthening its offensive firepower to take Iranian nuclear facilities offline…

The threat of military force, especially if paired with U.S.-imposed sanctions that manage to cripple Iran’s economy, may convince Tehran that there is no choice but to diplomatically resolve the crisis.

Oh the irony in this half-baked analysis. First, Iran is the party which has negotiated diplomatic agreements to restrain its nuclear program. These were diplomatic agreements which both Netanyahu and Trump opposed.  At no time did either of them offer anything resembling a diplomatic option.  It was all saber-rattling. In the end, it amounted to nothing and failed.

In the passage above, a diplomatic resolution would involve Tehran dismantling its nuclear program entirely, without getting much of anything in return.  A bargain that will look tantalizing to Ayatollah Khamenei, I’m sure.  Unless, of course the US wants to subdue Iran by assassinating him, as it did Qassem Solemani; and as Israel assassinated Ismail Haniyeh. That would be the perfect ‘diplomatic’ solution, no doubt.

Second, the US and Israel have already threatened to attack Iran, many times. The threats haven’t worked. Why a mere threat (rather than an actual attack) would work now is anybody’s guess.  Trump also tried to cripple Iran’s economy during his first term. That didn’t work either.

Trump’s coterie is advocating letting Israel do the dirty work, while we tag along:

Trump aides and confidants supporting military options…said the main idea would be to support Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities like Natanz, Fordow and Isfahan, and even potentially have the U.S. participate in a joint operation…

This is the golden ring Netanyahu (and Olmert before him) has been seeking for nearly two decades: a green light from a US president to blast Iran to smithereens.  George Bush refused him.  Obama refused him.  Now Trump could become the first US president to start a war together with Israel.  Truly an auspicious undertaking.

The right-wing WSJ makes the usual anti-Iran talking points, offering a US intelligence estimate that the country has enough fissile material for 12 nuclear bombs.   It doesn’t mention that there is a very long road from having enriched uranium needed to produce a bomb, and actually doing so. Uranium is perhaps the most important element, but by no means the only one.  Without them all, there is no bomb. Not to mention that there are even more steps to producing a delivery vehicle to carry it to its target.

An Iranian-American engineering professor and nuclear expert, Prof. Muhammad Sahimi, offers a markedly different analysis. He declares:

“Iran has 183 kg of enriched uranium at 60%. As far as I know, this is probably enough for 5-6 crude bombs, unless Iran has roughly twice as much enriched uranium.”

There are a few caveats in the report. Namely, that this is a proposal at this stage.  It hasn’t been brought to Trump and there isn’t even a consensus among the advisors on this.

But his hawkish advisors are clearly attempting to push their views out into the right-wing media scrum.  As we know from past experience with Trump, he has no respect for foreign policy consensus or diplomatic precedent. He’s more than willing to break a few eggs if doing so makes him look good.  Giving Iran a black eye, and preventing or delaying it obtaining a nuclear weapon, will make him look very good indeed to his fellow MAGA Republicans.

But if Trump does give a green light, he will not want to be directly involved. No US pilots, no boots on the ground.  He will offer everything but that: F-35s, bunker buster bombs, advanced missiles, CIA/NSA intelligence.  Everything Israel needs to bring Iran to its knees–or so he believes.  In doing so, he will obtain maximum gain with minimum expense.  A win-win, as the real estate wheeler-dealer would put it.

The WSJ article notes–as I wrote similarly of Israel’s crucial role as catalyst for Assad’s demise–that Trump’s advisors are closely eyeing Israel’s recent “successes.”  They’re heartened it has been able to lay low so many enemies over such a short period of time.  Trump’s hawks and Netanyahu are rubbing their hands with glee over the next prize, Iran:

The military-strike option against nuclear facilities is now under more serious review by some members of his transition team, who are weighing the fall of the regime of President Bashar al-Assad—Tehran’s ally—in Syria, the future of U.S. troops in the region, and Israel’s decimation of regime proxy militias Hezbollah and Hamas. Iran’s weakened regional position…

WSJ unintentionally reveals how naive Trump is about the potential blow-back from such a strike:

The president-elect wants plans that stop short of igniting a new war, particularly one that could pull in the U.S. military, as strikes on Tehran’s nuclear facilities have the potential put the U.S. and Iran on a collision course.

So Trump wants to attack Iran but not ignite a war; a strike against Iran could potentially put our two nations on a “collision course.”  What does WSJ think a military strike is, if not a declaration of war?  Does he expect the Iranians to sit back and ponder what the destruction of all, or part of their nuclear program and military capabilities means?

Washington Post’s Ignatius hosts Israeli war criminal

The Washington Post’s David Ignatius, a cheerleader for Brand Israel, features a “briefing” from Israeli war criminal and wanted fugitive, Yoav Gallant. It’s comparable to accepting a briefing from Hitler before he invaded Russia; from Pol Pot before the Killing Fields; or Putin before he invaded Ukraine.  I find it repulsive that a major journalist would not only enjoy a tete a tete with a mass murderer, but promote his call for war against Iran.

The headline says it all:

“With Iran’s guard down, the U.S. and Israel face an urgent choice.

Israel’s former defense minister says there is “a window to act” — and the clock is ticking.

Iran’s “guard” is not down.  In fact, Iran is acutely aware that the vultures are circling. It will make anyone seeking to fest upon its carcass pay for the privilege. And pay dearly. Ignatius adds: “…It [Iran] appears to be nearly naked to attack.” Great powers from the US to Russia have made the mistake of thinking they can subdue vassal states with incredible firepower–shock and awe.  The victims are neither shocked nor awestruck.

Lebanon, Gaza and Syria are not Iran. Hamas, Hezbollah and Assad are not Ayatollah Khamenei.  No matter how much damage the IAF has done to Iran’s air defenses, Iran will not go quietly.  It will take its pound of flesh, if not more, from Israel.

As I wrote above, all of this saber-rattling could have the opposite of its intended effect:

“Paradoxically, its new vulnerability could drive Iran to gain a nuclear arsenal in an effort to deter otherwise unstoppable adversaries.”

Ignatius seems to believe letting loose the dogs of war is the best way to avoid an Iranian bomb. He promotes the hawks’ plan to join an Israeli strike–a war of aggression couched as a preventive attack.  It would bind the US to a country accused of genocide, as they both pursue yet another mass slaughter, in yet another Middle Eastern country

“If coercive diplomacy fails to quash Iran’s nuclear capability, Israel and the United States might consider military action. Many Iranian nuclear facilities are buried deep underground, and analysts have argued that only the United States has big enough conventional weapons to bust those bunkers. Gallant hopes the United States and Israel will work together to prevent a nuclear Iran. But he stressed: “Israel has the means to strike Iranian assets in a precise, forceful and sophisticated manner. If needed, we will not hesitate to act.”

Is this yet another bluff like those we’ve been hearing from the US and Israel for decades?  Or is this the real thing?  Given the developments since 10/7, this is not a drill. We must act as if war is not only possible, but likely. Global anti-war movements must prepare for resistance. We must lobby our respective countries to oppose a senseless war based on spurious claims against a country doing nothing more than what almost a dozen other countries (including the US and Israel) have done: pursuing nuclear research that may lead to producing a nuclear weapon. Attacking Iran is the height of hypocrisy.  But Israel never let that stop it from acts of aggression against its enemies.

If Trump really wants to eliminate Iranian capability of producing a bomb, then he will have to launch a massive attack on scores of sites using the most lethal and powerful weapons in our arsenal.  There is no way that this would not launch a full-scale war.  There is also no way that this would not lead to Iran producing such a weapon.  When self-preservation is at stake, Iran will produce every weapon it possibly can as quickly as it can.

Please leave this field empty

Welcome to Tikun Olam!

Sign up to receive new posts daily in your Inbox.

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.