So what if the thinking goes that an Iranian ship might try to fight or circumvent the blockade, and doesn't back down when they are instructed to?Just a final thought: did he add "although I doubt it" later in the revision process?
In such cases, Israel may feel compelled to sink the vessel.
And then what happens? Iran declares that this is an act of war. You can bet your bottom dollar they will, with the harshest of warnings - maybe even fling a non-nuclear tipped missile or two.
And then Israel, hearing that declaration, and seeing those missiles, decides that this is the time to strike against those Iranian reactors that it, and most of the world believes, are nearing the capability to produce nuclear weapons . . .
I'm convinced that Israel has been war-gaming this scenario, and believes that if they are to take these nukes out, the time to act is now. It could well be that Hezbollah's actions may cause a chain of events that will give Israel the pretext it thinks it needs to do this . . .
Just a final thought - although I doubt it, is it totally beyond the pale that these two Israeli soliders were instructed to allow themselves to be kidnapped in order to foster the chain of events I have just described?
Further thoughts: Destroying Iran's nuclear program is a manifestly good thing to do. The problem is not the lack of a pretext, but logistics. Iran has obviously taken steps to avoid a repeat of the attack on Iraq's nuclear program in 1981. And there is no need to offer a "Real reason" for the operations against Lebanon and Gaza. It isn't simply a question of a single kidnapping in the case of each terrorist group. Hizbullah and Hamas have both been engaged in arms build-ups and missile attacks. These have gone on for much too long, and a new campaign of kidnapping cannot be tolerated on top of the pre-existing threats.
No comments:
Post a Comment