Haaretz WikiLeaks exclusive / Israel ruled out military option on Iran years ago

[oberliner]

Senior defense officials ruled out an Israeli military attack on Iran's nuclear sites as early as five and a half years ago, telegrams sent from the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv in 2005 and 2006 indicate. The cables, which were revealed over the weekend, are among hundreds of thousands shared exclusively with Haaretz by the WikiLeaks website.

In the first telegram, sent on December 2, 2005, American diplomats said their conversations with Israeli officials indicate that there is no chance of a military attack being carried out on Iran. A more detailed telegram was sent in January 2006, summing up a meeting between U.S. Congressman Gary Ackerman (a Democrat for New York ) and Dr. Ariel Levite, then deputy chief of Israel's Atomic Energy Commission.

"Levite said that most Israeli officials do not believe a military solution is possible," the telegram ran. "They believe Iran has learned from Israel's attack on Iraq's Osirak reactor, and has dispersed the components of its nuclear program throughout Iran, with some elements in places that Israel does not know about."

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/haaretz-wikileaks-exclusive-israel-ruled-out-military-option-on-iran-years-ago-1.355024

[dipsydoodle]

1. And that being the case

begs the question - who outside of Israel stirs the situation by implying otherwise.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shira]

3. +1

[LeftishBrit]

9. Two groups IMO

(1) Those who want to treat Israel as a bogeynation

(2) Those who want to treat Iran as a bogeynation

And a fair proportion of people with an interest in the Middle East come into one, and occasionally both, of these categories.

FWIW, I always suspected that people were crying wolf about this issue.

[leveymg]

4. Ok - so what's the point of maintaining the pretense of preparations for imminent attacks? We still

hear them repeated every few months. Are they pretense, or is this?

Keep 'em guessing, right? Or is most of that for domestic consumption, to keep the Israeli Right placated and aggitated?

The politics and propaganda of permanent warfare states the world over are identical. It's all about holding onto power.

[dipsydoodle]

5. Its not so much that

its more a matter of who publishes such information outside of Israel and for what purpose.

[leveymg]

6. Top Israeli officials, civilian and military, are constantly issuing such threats.

This is part of a strategy of deception. I think the only people that aren't deceived by it are the Iranians. It keeps their hard-liners in power, too. Maybe, that's part of the equation?

[shaayecanaan]

7. "give me what I want or I`ll blow my brains out all over your suit"

Israel knew that the US didnt want to go to war over Iran, but they knew that the US *really* didn`t want Israel to go to war with Iran (and neither did the Arab states for that matter). Israel was hoping that the threat of the latter would goad the US into choosing the former.

The constant sabre rattling from Israel was probably intended as much for American audiences as it was for Iran. It was a fairly transparent ploy, though.

[bemildred]

8. The "Crazy Guy" strategy has a long history. nt

[leveymg]

10. The primary Israeli argument why "MAD" deterrence wouldn't work with Iran is that

Iran, it is claimed, is an theocracy with a persecution complex and apocalyptic beliefs and tendencies - QED, not rational enough to be deterred from first-use of nuclear weapons. Now, doesn't that sound familiar?

Wasn't the whole Cold War strategic doctrine based upon mutual projection and feedback of perceived irrational intentions and deceptions? MAD, indeed.

[bemildred]

11. Like I said, the Crazy guy strategy has a long history.

In that context, the Crazy Guy would be Israel, as with Nixon it was the USA threatening to nuke somebody. "All options are on the table!!!" You know?

Iran would be the crazy external enemy that it is impossible to talk to who justifies authoritarian rule and police methods at home, the external threat, not the external threatened; and I suspect that is mostly because they happen to be the only credible external threat of sufficient magnitude. Both the externality and the magnitude of the Palestinian threat are questionable, whereas Ahm-an-idjit very much wants to play the game, and Iran is quite external and plenty big enough.

[leveymg]

12. "Iran is quite external and plenty big enough." Which is precisely why we probably will not bomb it.

Deterrence has many facets, and the nuclear part is almost irrelevant, except as a pretext for the continuation of MAD strategies and domestic politics. The WMD element is, indeed, most useful to containing and neutralizing internal political opponents, and to stimulate milk production from the permanent warfare state economy, on all sides.

[bemildred]

13. Indeed.

:thumbsup: