It might be that the recent headlines are just empty rumors, but if they are actually based on true substance, then it seems 2007 might become a year of muscle flexing, it not tangible action. I am talking about two recent headlines: 1. "Israel to nuke Iranian nukes" and 2. "Japan, U.S. upgrading military emergency plan."
The first report comes from the British Sunday Times, who cite "several Israeli military sources" as proclaiming Israel has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons. The strikes concern an enrichment plant in Natanz, a heavy water plant in Arak, and a uranium conversion plant in Isfahan. The first would be targeted using low-yield nuclear bunker busters, while conventional bombs would suffice in destroying the other two.
If true, this is spectacular news. If untrue, it is yet another shoddy attempt by the Sunday Times to grab global headlines. Either way, it is a story that I would rather not have seen published, as it informs the Iranian government of possible action for which they can now prepare themselves. I also personally don't think the Mullahs will be hesitant to continue with their nuclear enrichment plans after hearing this news, thus nullifying any preemptive purpose for leaking it. Despite the fact that the UN Security Council voted unanimously last month to slap sanctions on Iran to try to stop uranium enrichment, the UN has shown itself to be categorically incompetent when dealing with Iran (and a host of other issues for that matter). In that sense it could be the best alternative for Israel to follow through with such a plan; especially if the success of the 1981 air strike against an atomic reactor in Iraq can be emulated. Nevertheless I am vacillating on the matter, as there are so many factors at play when Iran is concerned.
The second headline worth focusing on is the upgrading of the US-Japan joint operation plans for a possible contingency on the Korean Peninsula. In 2002 the two countries signed a conceptual plan code-named "5055" which only mentions basic principles, numbers of necessary facilities and other information in each category of the joint operations. The new joint operational plan calls on Japan to provide logistics support for U.S. troops, including the use of specific ports and hospitals in cases of a military emergency in or around Japan. This will significantly enhance Japan's role in the event of a crisis or war, thereby freeing US resources. This will unconstrain the Americans and provide them with more leeway in dealing with other hotbeds simultaneously (e.g. Iraq and Iran).
If the stories above are all true, then it looks like 2007 is shaping up to be a year of tacit alliances, contingency planning and outright action. I just hope the Iranians will be unable to attain their nuclear ambitions and that the US will attempt direct talks with the North Koreans. Both conflicts should be solved without military intervention, though this seems more plausible in the North Korean case. If action is indeed necessary, then a swift, painless strike as outlined by the Sunday Times is clearly preferable.
The first report comes from the British Sunday Times, who cite "several Israeli military sources" as proclaiming Israel has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons. The strikes concern an enrichment plant in Natanz, a heavy water plant in Arak, and a uranium conversion plant in Isfahan. The first would be targeted using low-yield nuclear bunker busters, while conventional bombs would suffice in destroying the other two.
If true, this is spectacular news. If untrue, it is yet another shoddy attempt by the Sunday Times to grab global headlines. Either way, it is a story that I would rather not have seen published, as it informs the Iranian government of possible action for which they can now prepare themselves. I also personally don't think the Mullahs will be hesitant to continue with their nuclear enrichment plans after hearing this news, thus nullifying any preemptive purpose for leaking it. Despite the fact that the UN Security Council voted unanimously last month to slap sanctions on Iran to try to stop uranium enrichment, the UN has shown itself to be categorically incompetent when dealing with Iran (and a host of other issues for that matter). In that sense it could be the best alternative for Israel to follow through with such a plan; especially if the success of the 1981 air strike against an atomic reactor in Iraq can be emulated. Nevertheless I am vacillating on the matter, as there are so many factors at play when Iran is concerned.
The second headline worth focusing on is the upgrading of the US-Japan joint operation plans for a possible contingency on the Korean Peninsula. In 2002 the two countries signed a conceptual plan code-named "5055" which only mentions basic principles, numbers of necessary facilities and other information in each category of the joint operations. The new joint operational plan calls on Japan to provide logistics support for U.S. troops, including the use of specific ports and hospitals in cases of a military emergency in or around Japan. This will significantly enhance Japan's role in the event of a crisis or war, thereby freeing US resources. This will unconstrain the Americans and provide them with more leeway in dealing with other hotbeds simultaneously (e.g. Iraq and Iran).
If the stories above are all true, then it looks like 2007 is shaping up to be a year of tacit alliances, contingency planning and outright action. I just hope the Iranians will be unable to attain their nuclear ambitions and that the US will attempt direct talks with the North Koreans. Both conflicts should be solved without military intervention, though this seems more plausible in the North Korean case. If action is indeed necessary, then a swift, painless strike as outlined by the Sunday Times is clearly preferable.
No comments:
Post a Comment