2008/07/21 Zurich
Four to seven
Almost surely
An interesting piece by Benny Morris in Saturday’s Herald Tribune: “Israel will almost surely attack Iran's nuclear sites in the next four to seven months - and the leaders in Washington and even Tehran should hope that the attack will be successful enough to cause at least a significant delay in the Iranian production schedule, if not complete destruction, of that country's nuclear program. Because if the attack fails, the Middle East will almost certainly face a nuclear war - either through a subsequent pre-emptive Israeli nuclear strike or a nuclear exchange shortly after Iran gets the bomb.”
I was intrigued by the words “in the next four to seven months.” Because of this article I bet that Israel is not going to attack Iran in the next four to seven months.
[ Add comment ]
9 comments 
So far, you have won all the bets here. I will stay with you.
6 to 7 months, that means that we'd have a new US ¨President. Who knows. Should we go and buy some jodiumpills?
As good blog entries always do, they lead to mind boggling new questions: Does it mean that the Herald Trubune holds the key to war and peace: announcing an attack is enough to prevent it? Why? Because Israeli authorities don't like the HT to be correct in their forecasts? Or is the HT used by the Israeli government to misinform the world? Or is there an even more complex causality? And what if it hadn't been the HT but De Telegraaf or Dagblad van het Noorden that had predicted the attack?
Ron
Benny Morris is an Israeli historian who is worth reading.He did change his political views, but this book is still recommended:
http://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Victims-Zionist-Arab-Conflict-1881-2001/dp/0679744754/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216636379&sr=1-2
I’m not sure how close Morris is to Israeli security circles. It’s possible that his op-ed piece is meant as a warning to Iran, there were quite a few warnings to Iran the last couple of months.
I believe that Israel has a history of attacking without prior warnings, hence my bet.
Arnon, thanks. The book is ordered.
(Off topic: I managed to get a copy of the "Judas-edition" of the Grunberg Heertje columns this weekend. It's beautiful, but what is a Judas-edition?)
(Off topic: I managed to get a copy of the "Judas-edition" of the Grunberg Heertje columns this weekend. It's beautiful, but what is a Judas-edition?)
Ron
Re: Judas.Please ask Johannes.
It would make sense for israel to attack somewhere after the election in the us and maybe before the inauguration of the next president. Because right now there is an administration that favors an agressive stance toward rogue states and a Mccain adminstration would be likely to take the same position.
Yet if Isreal would attack Iran, which it is almost impossible to do without the support (or at least the blessing) of the Us, odds are that would favor obama and the anti war movement. And if Obama would get elected support for Israel would probably decline. So the attack needs to happen after the elections in the us.
Yet the attack has to happen before the inauguration because Obama would be unlikely to support an unilateral attack on Iran. Mccain would probably be more inclined to support this yet you never know, definitely since the taliban is surging and more troops are needed in afghanistan too.
The Bush white house will probably be not all too enthousiastic about an attack on iran, yet if it would happen after the elections they would most likely not stop Israel.
So if israel wants to attack Iran, it would need to happen somewhere between october and january so somewhere betwee 3 to 5 months from now. If it doens't attack during that time period, it risks being isolated.
Yet if Isreal would attack Iran, which it is almost impossible to do without the support (or at least the blessing) of the Us, odds are that would favor obama and the anti war movement. And if Obama would get elected support for Israel would probably decline. So the attack needs to happen after the elections in the us.
Yet the attack has to happen before the inauguration because Obama would be unlikely to support an unilateral attack on Iran. Mccain would probably be more inclined to support this yet you never know, definitely since the taliban is surging and more troops are needed in afghanistan too.
The Bush white house will probably be not all too enthousiastic about an attack on iran, yet if it would happen after the elections they would most likely not stop Israel.
So if israel wants to attack Iran, it would need to happen somewhere between october and january so somewhere betwee 3 to 5 months from now. If it doens't attack during that time period, it risks being isolated.
Ron
I will send you an e-mail about the book.I am to believe that Mc Cain doesn 't mind war at all. So if Mc Cain becomes president something is likely to happen (whenever it happens I won't be happy), which means more problems will arise. Perhaps a Democratic president can make a change in this brutal world.
[ Add comment ]
