Hawkish Perspectives
January 6th, 2007I’ve got to imagine that someone is going to prison in Israel for this leak.
ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons. Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear “bunker-busters”, according to several Israeli military sources. The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb. Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open “tunnels” into the targets. “Mini-nukes” would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout.
“As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished,” said one of the sources. The plans, disclosed to The Sunday Times last week, have been prompted in part by the Israeli intelligence service Mossad’s assessment that Iran is on the verge of producing enough enriched uranium to make nuclear weapons within two years.
A part of me doubts the legitimacy of this. What kind of Israeli would leak such a thing if it were true? It gives greenlight to the enemy, for one. Now, you might ask — why wouldn’t they? and I would tell you that Israel is always under threat, especially now from Iran. Any Israeli who would divulge this information to a newspaper deserves to rot in hell for jeopardizing his country’s existence. Of course, this might be an Israeli message to the Iranian government to stop but I really doubt that.
It seems like an internal Israeli attempt to derail the program by prompting international criticism, something that I think it’ll fail at and should fail at. If this has to be done it should be done, and I think it’s a matter of good faith and citizenship to support this measure if you’re an Israeli.
Which means that, yes, I endorse this attack, if it happens. Which makes me a hawk, like John McCain, and I’ve got a few things to add about him.
The Arizona senator’s hawkish position that the United States must do what is necessary to win the war might appeal to hard-core Republicans, but it also has the potential to turn off most Americans whose support for the nearly 4-year-old war has diminished. “I have presidential ambitions, but they pale in comparison to what I think is most important to our nation’s security. If it destroys any ambitions I may have, I’m willing to pay that price gladly,” McCain said Friday, brushing aside scenarios of political fallout.
I hope he’s serious, re: the bold, then he’s going to have a lot of inner peace in two years as if he keeps his position, re: the italics, he is going to be trounced in the primary and in the general election, if he makes it beyond South Carolina. (I don’t think he will, though, as he’s a bit of a loser, a bit of a hothead, and a bit of a bad campaigner, to go along with Too new-age to be Truly Conservative, too Conservative to be Liberal in any sense of the word.)