Don't Bet on an Iran War - Barron's

Despite Israel's saber-rattling, Barron's says the threat of an Israel or U.S. attack on Iran is negligible.

George Friedman, founder and head of highly-respected (and prescient) Stratfor global-intelligence company notes:

The Iran-attack story gained widespread credence after the New York Times reported June 20 that more than 100 Israeli aircraft had participated several weeks earlier in a military exercise over the eastern Mediterranean, near Greece. The distance from Israel was roughly 900 miles, the same as that separating Israel from Iran, and the exercise was viewed as a trial run for a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. 

Just a day later, the Times of London quoted Israeli military sources who confirmed the "dress rehearsal" nature of the exercise, while a story in the Jerusalem Post alluded to previous statements made by Israeli intelligence officials who said Iran would cross an unspecified nuclear threshold in 2008, not 2009, as expected.

The saber-rattling by unnamed officials smacks of psychological warfare to Friedman, however -- not preparations for the real thing. "Why would Israel telegraph its punch like that?" he asks. "Recall that when Israel took out Iraq's Osirak reactor back in 1981, it was successful precisely because it gave no hint at all of an impending attack."

An attack on Iran would essentially close the Strait of Hormuz until the area was de-mined, which could easily drive crude prices "to more than $300 a barrel, which even over a short period would be cataclysmic to the global economy and stock markets."

Ahmadinejad has recently toned down his anti-Western rhetoric, while the U.S. has softened its stance. Besides which, Friedman says, Iran is decades away from developing credible nuclear weaponry - and by all measures may never get there. Lacking Western know-how, the best it can hope for down the road would be a controlled explosion of a crude device.

Barron's says cooler heads will prevail, and the end game is closer than most imagine.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Jason Kelly considers the implications of a strike on Iran.

Comments

[Egg:]

I also think the idea of Israel doing a pre-emptive attack is wrong.

I have a feeling if they did (based in part on the anti-US state of the world) that an attack would have devastating reverse implications against Israel by rallying the entire Mideast, along with China and Russia against them.

And (not to overstate the possible irony) such an attack which would be meant to protect Israel's security longterm, might remotely lead to the eventually destruction of Israel, and fulfill the now infamous stated desire of Iran's president to wipe them off the face of the Earth.

2008 Aug 03 06:43 PM