"Am I therefore become your enemy,because I TELL YOU THE TRUTH...?"
(Galatians 4:16)

Weigh all considerations

Should Iran be attacked, or are diplomatic efforts the right approach?
We have recently been witnessing an escalation in the war rhetoric between the US and Iran. Last week President Bush cautioned that if the international community is unable to prevent Iran from achieving military nuclear capability, it may lead to World War III. Later, Admiral Michael Mullen, the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that despite efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US has the necessary means to attack Iran.In response, Gen. Mahmoud Chaharbaghi, a senior member of Iran's Revolutionary Guard said that if Iran is attacked, it would fire 11,000 missiles into enemy positions within a minute.In his declaration, George Bush took a dangerous gamble, perhaps too dangerous. He is trying to make Russian and Chinese leaders realize that the evasive position they have taken thus far is disastrous, and that his announcement is designed to convince international leaders that if they do not take harsh and effective sanctions against Iran soon, the US will be forced to embark on a military operation whose outcome could be far worse. Bush is strongly encouraged by the new French position, adopted since Nicholas Sarkozy was elected to the presidency and backing an aggressive operation against Iran's nuclear program.The American president's announcement was primarily directed at Iranian ears, but more so at the leadership's moderates who fear that the nuclear project is likely to drag Iran to war with the US.However, intentions are one thing while the outcome is another. Even when Bush went to war in Iraq in 2003, his intentions were good; however, the results were disastrous. Moreover, the war rhetoric emanating from Washington may backfire and strengthen radical groups in Iran - primarily the Revolutionary Guard.These groups argue that Iran should accelerate its nuclear project and present this fact as a fait accompli to the world. To do so, these groups are seeking to use the US' allies as hostages.
Iranian counter attack may double oil prices
The threat pertaining to "11,000 rockets per minute" insinuates an intention of using relatively low-range missiles. No country worldwide, besides the US and Russia, has a number of missiles that even comes remotely close to this figure.In his speech Gen. Mahmoud Chaharbaghi did not mention Israel, even though Iran can order Hizbullah to launch missiles at it. It appears that his threat was primarily targeted at the Persian Gulf – Kuwait, Qatar, the United Emirates and Saudi Arabia, and at American targets in Iraq and in the Gulf.The realization of such threat, even partially, may lead oil prices to double and drag world economy into a severe crisis. To the Israeli government's credit it may be said that is was smart enough not to be dragged into the war of words, except for a somewhat strange statement by former Chief of Staff Moshe Ya'alon, who while in Washington spoke of Israel's and the NATO countries' ability to eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat.Israeli leadership has focused its efforts on diplomatic activity, some of it overt and some covert, whose aim is to impose effective sanctions on Iran. Almost all the experts on this matter agree that Iran's military nuclear capability will not be translated into dropping an atom bomb on Israel. Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons is aimed at boosting its status and threatening enemies, but for actual use, certainly not against Israel whose ability to respond is unquestionable.Despite this, there is no dispute that the world and particularly Israel would be better off if Iran does not develop military nuclear power. The crucial question is whether in order to prevent this from happening Iran should be attacked, thus risking Iranian counter measures that may destabilize the Persian Gulf and later the world, or whether diplomatic efforts should be continued at the risk of a nuclear Iran.It should be hoped that all those involved in this matter are weighing the odds levelheadedly, while neutralizing any short term considerations.

As in the days of Noah