Emeryville (Calif.)–In a New York Times article dated March 19th, a war simulation was reported which was conducted by the Pentagon. It reported what results an Israeli attack on Iran would have on American interests and forces in the larger geographical area. Succinctly, it predicts that the strike would lead to a wider regional war, which could in the end most likely suck in the United States and leave hundreds â€“( if not thousands) of Americans — plus allies — dead.
This military exercise has increased the concern Israeli strategy is to force America into Tel Avivâ€™ confrontation with Iran. At the moment, Washingtonâ€™s current stance is to remain neutral. In the words, of the Times writer, â€œâ€¦a strike could prove perilous for the United States.â€ Aides to the U.S. General responsible for the expanse related that â€œâ€¦an Israeli first strike would likely to have dire consequences across the region and for United States forces there.â€
(War games either on computer or real troops look at â€œwhat ifâ€ scenarios.) This two-week long war game (Internal Look) assumed that the District of Columbia (D.C.) was pulled into the conflict when Iranian missiles struck a U.S. Navy warship (either intentionally or unintentionally) in the Persian Gulf in retaliation for the Israeli aggression (which was beyond the U.S.A. to control) â€“ with initial casualties of about 200 sailors and Marines. The United States is forced to counteract in self-defense by carrying out its own strikes as the N.YT. (New York Times) reports. This is sometimes politically referred to as the â€œOctober Surpriseâ€ because there is some speculation that the highest probability is right before the election to rid Tel Aviv of Barack Hussein Obama, who is seen as a thorn in the side of Israelâ€™s right-wing government — much like perceived pro-Palestinian Jimmy Carter in his run against Ronald Reagan from whose foreign policy al-Islam is still reeling.
Curiously an Israeli attack, if they even have the means to accomplish it, (Pakistan and, thereby, Tehran have superior long-range weaponry since Rawalpindi, who had had exchanged its nuclear technology for North Korean projectile proficiency to fulfill the requirement to build a credible defense against the territorial whole of its main threat, nuclear Subcontinental India), and it appears much of this technology was handed over to Iran.
Back to the Times, an Israeli attack would set back the Iranian program by roughly a year (your commentator has read estimates that that Tehranâ€™s nuclear capability would be out for a lesser period because it is in hard targets (mountains), and subsequent forced American strikes would only slow the Iranian nuclear effort, if they have any at all or if it is a lower capability, by merely an additional two years. Americaâ€™s arsenal of long-range bombers, refueling aircraft and precision missiles could do far more damage to the Iranian nuclear program if diplomacy failed due to Israeli duplicity.
An Israeli foray along with the certain counterstrike by Iran would create an unpredictable and uncontrollable situation within the extended territorial span.
Certainly, the N.Y.T. reports, Israel would give the United States little or no warning of an attack upon Qum and other Iranian nuclear sites.
Unfortunately, Iran would assume that the United States was complicit with Tel Aviv; and, therefore, American military forces in the Persian Gulf would be open targets. The Times recounts Washingtonâ€™s armed forces assuming that Iranian jets would chase Israeli warplanes after the assault, and Iranians would launch missiles at an American warship in the Persian Gulf. D.C. (the District of Columbia) would view this as an act of war that would coerce (by the Israelis) American retaliation.
Pakistan as a regional nuclear power in â€œbrotherlyâ€ relations with its Western neighbor, would be a lynch pin as would be France as the only member of the P-5 with a nuclear capability to counter the threat if the IDF (Israeli Defense Force) â€œscrews onâ€ their warheads. Paris is an unlikely scenario, but she does not have the best of relations with the Jewish Commonweal, and her interests are to prevent the acting out of the Christian Zionist myth of Armageddon in the Middle East, for they are the former Colonial power over many of the States in that region, a relationship which France still takes very seriously.
Back to the Times commentary, Iran would try to carefully manage the escalation after an Israeli first strike in order to avoid giving the United States a rationale for attacking with its far superior forces (which is the purpose of the Israeli Dense Forcesâ€™ ensnarement). Although the Shia Islamic Republic might use proxies (â€œterroristsâ€), (who might, also, be enemies of Rawalpindi) to set off car bombs in world capitals, or funnel high explosives to insurgents in Afghanistan to attack American and NATO troops.
Tehran would deny any responsibility, for the Persians would not wish a full-scale war on its territory. Consequently, on the other hand, many U.S. military planners think that Iran would not directly strike American military targets.
Thus, diplomats and generals are scrambling presently attempting to establish a position and response upon the worst.
â€œA war is no picnic,â€ Hebrew Defense Minister Ehud Barak stated in an interview. Further, if Israel feels itself forced into action, the retaliation would be bearable, (and that shows the source of probable tragic aggression).
â€œThere will not be 100,000 dead or 10,000 dead or 1,000 dead. The state of Israel will not be destroyed.â€ (These words demonstrate the magnitude of Zionist miscalculations towards the Islamic world that has brought us to this point in time on the precipice of ill-thought-out bellicosity towards the Shiite Republic!)
Whatever way, as a nuclear-tipped State, Pakistan perceives its interests might be a pivotal actor in the outcome of this quandary; and, thereby, direct Islamabad into the geopolitics of the Middle East forming a bridge between Western Asia — along with North Africa — to Islamic South Asia.