 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
But the fact that we're having an election is highly likely to have a major effect on one very specific international event:
I suspect that Israel will launch an attack against Iran's nuclear facilities not later than one week before the U.S. presidential election.
It will probably happen with U.S. assistance or, at least, acquiescence. It's unlikely that the U.S. will object. Assistance and cooperation by the United States would greatly enhance the likelihood of a successful outcome.
I'm led to my conclusion by a number of facts that are probably not in dispute: Israel has good reason to fear a nuclear-armed Iran, and is unlikely to let it happen. Israel has previously attacked nuclear facilities in Iraq and Syria. There is no reason to believe that it will not do so in Iran. The only question is when such an attack is likely to occur.
Our approaching election will probably affect Israel's decision.
There are essentially only three time periods to consider: (1) after the new president takes office, (2) after the U.S. election but before the new president is inaugurated, and (3) before the election.
Given his views on the Iraq war, it's highly unlikely that Israel could count upon U.S. assistance if Barack Obama wins the election and is in office at the time of an attack. John McCain is far more likely to cooperate with Israel in an attack if he's president. But Israel won't know who'll occupy the White House until after the election. So waiting carries a strong risk for Israel.
Even if Obama wins, George Bush will still be president until Jan. 20. However, if Obama wins, Israel and Bush run the risk of serious public disapproval if an attack occurs before Obama moves into the Oval Office. A disapproving Obama would be in a position to make Israel pay a very heavy price for its action.
Of course, McCain could win, but that appears increasingly unlikely. Thus, again, Israel runs a risk if it waits until after Nov. 4.
Acting before the voting presents Israel with its best opportunity. President Bush is probably inclined to provide U.S. assistance. He has spoken out against a nuclear Iran. As a lame duck, he also has nothing to lose politically by assisting Israel.
Before the election, neither Obama nor McCain is likely to condemn Israel, at least too harshly, for fear of alienating the Jewish vote, which could be crucial in several states.
Iran, of course, is likely to retaliate against Israel if attacked. But Iranian retaliation is less likely if it's clear that the U.S. will come to Israel's defense.
Regardless of his views on Israel's attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, neither candidate is likely to be willing, before the election, to express strong opposition to U.S. efforts to defend Israel against Iranian retaliation.
INDEED, IT'S inevitable, if Israel is attacked before the election, that the candidates will have to respond about defending Israel against Iranian retaliation.
It would be difficult for the candidates to equivocate on this. It is also appears unlikely that either would refuse to support coming to Israel's defense.
Thus, whatever effect an Israeli attack will have on the election, it seems clear to me that the approaching election itself will have a major effect on Israel's decision to attack. *
Howard Lurie of King of Prussia was an instructor at the Army Intelligence School in the early years of the Vietnam war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fr
Dec 5
|
Sa
Dec 6 |
Su
Dec 7 |
Mo
Dec 8 |
Tu
Dec 9 |
TOP STORIES
SPORTS
Green
today's poll
express headlines
Promotions
photo GALLERY
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
email this
print this
