read the article thoroughly

Submitted by yuval Brandstetter MD (Israel), Jun 14, 2007 at 03:55

If you read the article you will see the reason, no attack yet is not inability or unwillingness. It is to derive maximum benefit from the investment in an attack. The centrifuges must all be in place to achieve the greatest destruction, and inability to reconstitue the effort. as for iranian counter-attack, please tell me what dilemma is it between choosing a thermo-nuclear device versus taking some balistic missiles. Israel did take forty SCUDS from Iraq and thousands of conventional rockets from lebanon with hardly a dent except in National Pride. Israel is the only nation with an operational anti-Ballistic missile defense in place.

The authors did not consider another option, which is to take over an existing aerodrome in the Gulf, for 24 hours, in one of the emirates or even Saudi arabia using flown-in ground troops. Then attacking not in one wave but in repetitive sorties for 24 hours. Saudi Arabia is officially at war with israel anyway. The castigation Israel will take is irrelevant since israel is already castigated for its very existence. Finally the Saudi regime might be toppled, providing an excellent homeland for the teeming Palestinians who are simply Arabs hailing from the Hijazz. Just a thought. To say nothing of ballistic missiles Israel might have for that express purpose.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".