“The Bipartisan Policy Center’s National Security Project called yesterday for providing Israel with 200 GBU-31 bombs and two or three KC-135 aerial refueling tankers. Israel has a different variant of the bunker buster and about a dozen aerial tankers, which would be needed to enable Israeli warplanes to strike targets in Iran, according to a report by the group.” This is cited here.
General Charles Wald participated in the Bipartisan Policy Center’s report. He wrote “While we do not advocate an Israeli military strike, we believe a more credible Israeli threat can only increase the pressure on Iran to negotiate.” This is two-faced doubletalk. How else can such a threat be construed? It’s saying we demand that you negotiate and you must accede to what we want, or else we will have Israel bomb you. But so-called “negotiation” under the threat of a gun held to one’s head is not good-faith negotiation at all. Such threats and negotiation are incompatible.
In view of Washington’s arming of Israel and its numerous statements of complete support for Israel from its highest officials, it is surely understandable why Iran will probably regard an attack by Israel on Iran as an attack by the U.S. on Iran. Furthermore, Washington teeters on having been so irresponsible to the American people in its conduct of its relations with Israel that it has turned a critical part over its foreign policy on Iran to Israel and is now in the position of trying to restrain it.
A Rand analyst said that sending Israel more bombs is “actually counterproductive…It might compel the Iranian government to accelerate the nuclear program. They see a potential weapons capability as deterrence against the United State and Israel.” I have also argued that the latter is the case.10:42 am on February 2, 2012 Email Michael S. Rozeff