My Prediction for the October Surprise: Israel Bombs Iran's Nuclear Plant, Kills Russian Techs

[McCamy Taylor]

Today's story about how the U.S. military has agreed to equip Israel with bunker busting bombs in 30 days (unless our spineless Congress objects)

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/israel_bunker_buster_bomb/2008/09/14/130740.html

suggests that the October surprise will be an Israel attack on Iran's new nuclear reactor. The attack will have to be held soon, because recent stories from Tehran indicate that Russia and Iran are finalizing the project with a meeting in late September

http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=177405

The start-up of the first reactor at Iran's Bushehr nuclear plant will be ""irreversible"" by February next year, a senior Russian nuclear official was quoted by ITAR-TASS news agency as saying Monday.

For Russia, the project is a chance for them to get into the lucrative nuclear reactor building business. Here is an article from earlier this year which describes Russia's plans to send more staff to the Iranian facility as the start up date approached. The article also discussed the concerns of the west that Iran might use spent nuclear fuel to make a bomb. The article did not discuss any concerns which western corporations like GE and Exelon might feel over adding Russian firms to the list of nuclear reactor building competitors, but I am sure those factor in there, too.

http://www.bellona.org/articles/articles_2008/bushehr_increase

Now, depending upon how McCain-Palin are doing in the polls in mid-October, when the early voting really gets into high gear, Bush-Cheney may want to shove the economy to the back burner and bring Iran and terrorism and war and fear to the front burner. They can not declare war on some other country themselves, since Congress will not go along with it, that close to an election, and since the American people will not go along with it. Therefore, they will undoubtedly try the same plan which did not work so well in 2006---they will get their lackeys in Israel to poke Iran with a big stick.

Recall that in 2006 on the deadline for Valerie Plame to file a civil suit against Dick Cheney Israel invaded Lebanon. The invasion had been planned for six months, and the U.S. knew about it. Apparently, so did Hezbollah, which was well armed. The war was a disaster. Neither Syria nor Iran rose to the bait. The U.S. military condemned Israel for its inhumane actions--like dropping bombs on red cross ambulances. Israel's world standing went down. And the GOP did not get the war with Iran it desperately needed to retain control of Congress, nor did the NeoCons get an excuse to invade Iran to steal its oil.

With the Iranian nuclear reactor set to go on-line soon, the Unleash the Israeli Dogs of War strategy is probably worth another try for Bush-Cheney. By supplying Israel with the necessary bombs---and giving them private assurances that the U.S. has their back in a prolonged battle---Bush has given them the green light to attack. The only thing standing in their way is the fact that the facility is full of innocent Russian workers and technical advisers.

But wait! Bush-Cheney cleverly took care of that problem this summer. Recall that they had the Israeli Defense Forces go to Georgia to train the Georgians in how to fight, in preparation for combat with Russian forces. That suggests that the United States and Israel wanted to provoke a battle between Georgia and Russia over something---anything---so that McCain could denounce Russia. And his running mate could denounce Russia.

Why do a 180 degree turn on Russia, our alley for almost two decades? If you are planning to kill a bunch on innocent Russians as part of an October Surprise, you do not want your own people to exclaim "But the Israelis killed a bunch of innocent Russian! How could they?!" No, you would much rather have them think "So what? They were only Russians."

At this point, Bush-Cheney are counting upon Iran launching some sort of retaliatory attack against Israel---which will force the U.S. to intervene. Instant war. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is vilified--and so is Barack Obama since he said that he would negotiate with him. John McCain's "Bomb Iran" becomes a national slogan.

The U.S. military (which has been reluctant to engage in political wars for Bush since the debacle of Iraq) would not even have to agree to participate. The Israelis would do all the real work--and they would face all the real risks. Besides the Iranians and Russians who would die in the first strike, it would be Israeli civilians who sacrifice their lives to give the Republicans in the U.S. a political edge. No one in the U.S. would ever be at risk. Once Israelis started dying, there would be no will in this country to withhold aid, even if they started the conflict, and once U.S. soldiers were committed to help, "our cause" would be the good side and the Iranian side would be the bad side.

Before the conflict in Georgia, I would have said that the presence of Russian workers and technical advisers at the Iranian nuclear plant was enough to deter an Israeli attack. Now, I believe that stronger measures are required. The facility probably needs to have peacekeepers from neutral countries around the world on site, so that Israel understands that if it does commit murder, Americans will not cheer.

The NeoCons have worked too hard to acquire power to give up now. They think nothing of lying and murdering in order to achieve their goal, which is the control of the oil which Standard Oil used to control, before Third World countries decided to nationalize their crude. This NeoColonial venture will continue all the way up until the election and there is no rule that they will not break. Recall that in 1980, Reagan-Bush bartered the fate of hostages for votes with David Rockefeller helping to broker the deal. The Iranians still have the goods on Papa Bush. The Bush family would like nothing better than to destroy the nation and its leaders whom they helped to create almost three decades ago, so that their secret will finally be safe. This is W.'s last chance. The 9/11 film which they showed at the Republican Convention in which they showed the Iranian hostages and then the World Trade Center should tell us what their next Big Lie is going to be.

"Iran trained the hijackers who flew into the World Trade Center on 9/11. It wasn't Osama Bin Laden. It was the Shias..."

[dipsydoodle]

1. I don't seriously believe that will happen

It could result in Israel disappearing off the face of the map, almost overnight, permanently.

[McCamy Taylor]

2. Lebanon could have resulted in the same thing, but that happened.

You underestimate the greed of the handful of families that rule Israel and keep the rest of the people living there in fear while they get richer and richer with all the ill gotten U.S. money.

[cali]

3. Lebanan is not Iran

and since you are such an outstanding expert on the subject, who are these families? Do name them. Of course you know, right?

[still_one]

5. self-delete

[still_one]

6. It isn't going to happen, in spite of distorted viewpoint regarding Israel

Lebanon was an entirely different situation

Just curious, do you believe in a two state solution?

[still_one]

4. It isn't going to happen. It is neither in Israel's interest or Iran's to go to war

It won't happen

Too much uncertainity, and it would trigger all out war in the middle east

100 dollar a barrel oil would be considered cheap

Israel knows if it attacked Iran, there would be retaliation, and vice-versa, if Iran attacked Israel there would be retaliation

Neither country will assume that risk

Too many unknowns

[leftchick]

8. "Too many unknowns"???

since when did that ever stop a neocon?

[ladjf]

7. Iran is reputed to have numerous underground nuclear facilities.

Why else would Israel purchase 1,000 bunker buster bombs from the U.S.?

They may or may not bomb Iran before the election. But, the acquisition of the bombs was either for that purpose or to intimidate. Either way, the move was a bellicose and unwise decision.

Further, the sale of the bombs by the U.S. is a direct authorization or maybe even a request for Israel to use them.

[Douglas Carpenter]

9. Israel doesn't have enough long range bombers to carry out a massive sustained attack against Iran

sufficient enough to significantly degrade Iran's nuclear program or seriously degrade Iranian military capability.

And let us remember the the U.S. Intellegence estimate concluded that Iran is NOT working on a nuclear weapon.

The IAF is equipped for such an ability against much closer neighbors. Iran is about a thousand miles away. And given the massive deep-earth tunneling system the Iranians have developed, probably with North Korean assistance - it is highly doubtful that air power alone could neutralize or significantly degrade most perceived threats. In the case of Iran it is not simply a matter of knocking out a reactor or hitting a few key sites. Their system is considerably more complex than that with much harder to locate targets with many deeply buried underground.

Furthermore if Israel is directly involved in initiating such attacks, Israeli initiation would make it politically improbable if not impossible, for the United States to get the Gulf States on board if the U.S. were to get involved - This would be an absolute necessity if U.S. were to carry out the kind of massive sustained campaign required to neutralize the perceived Iranian threat and to significantly degrade their nuclear program.

As much as most Gulf Arabs fear and loathe the Iranians, they have no desire to put themselves in the direct line of fire from Iranian retaliation - which they do indeed have the ability to carry out in a very big way. Although Iranian weaponry is antiquated by Western standards..they have lots and lots and lots of short and medium range missiles - which are deeply embedded in hostile terrain - and very difficult to neutralize - that are more than capable of wrecking a great deal of havoc and carnage on the oil infrastructure in the Gulf States - which are just across a relatively modest body of water from Iran.

to quote from a recent NYT article above:

"Unlike in 1981, when Israel destroyed Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Osirak, there is no single target. A sustained bombing campaign would end up killing many civilians and still might not cripple Iran’s nuclear program. Tehran also has many frightening ways to retaliate. And even Arab states who fear Iran shudder at the thought of America, or its ally Israel, bombing another Muslim country and the backlash that that could provoke."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/10/opinion/10tue1.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Escalating oil price on the world market does create a certain degree of deterrence against such an attack; especially given the other potentially catastrophic economic problems the U.S. and world economy are now facing. It is probable that oil prices would almost certainly shoot up to between $200 to$300 a barrel within one week. It is also quite possible, in fact one could say probable, that oil extraction, refinement and transport out of the Gulf would be greatly crippled for a long, long time thus creating a REAL and a likely long term economic crisis for the whole world that would almost certainly last for several years perhaps even decades.

"I think of war with Iran as the ending of America's present role in the world. Iraq may have been a preview of that, but it's still redeemable if we get out fast. In a war with Iran, we'll get dragged down for 20 or 30 years. The world will condemn us. We will lose our position in the world."

Zbigniew Brzezinski