The U.S. Would Oppose Overflights of Iraqi Airspace to Attack Iran

(Thanks to Michael Travis)


The screws tighten!

What next? Will the Administration defend Iran against an Israeli attack against it's nuke facilities? (The United States has already deployed Patriot Air Defence Systems in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq, making an Israeli approach to Iranian airspace difficult, if not impossible for the IAF. (We must not forget that Bush-41 was prepared to fire on Israeli aircraft, in defence of Saddam's Iraq, while the United States was engaged in Operation Desert Storm....ostensibly against the very same Saddam Hussein. The mind boggles!)

Israel is being forced into a position where she must use non-conventional means to defend her people. Submarine-launched "Popeye" cruise missiles are the most likely alternative to risking war with the United States and a well-armed, U.S. trained, Arab Nation. Once again, the Jews are being told to dig trenches and line up to be shot....or fried. This isn't "1938", it's 1943!'Bomb Bomb Iran'? Not Likely.

From the Washington Post:

By David Ignatius
Sunday, August 3, 2008; B07


Analysts
speculate about the danger of a U.S. or Israeli military attack on Iran before
the Bush administration departs office next January. But if you read the tea
leaves carefully, the evidence is actually pointing in the opposite direction.

One sign that the diplomatic track is dominant for now is that the
administration plans to announce late this month that it will open an interest
section in Tehran, a senior official disclosed Thursday. This will be an
important symbol, as it will be the first American diplomatic mission in Iran
since the U.S. Embassy there was seized in 1979. The official described it as an
effort to "reach out to the Iranian people." The Iranian government has long had
an interest section in Washington.

The administration's wariness of
military options is also clear from recent efforts to dissuade Israel from
attacking Iranian nuclear facilities. Mike McConnell, the director of national
intelligence, traveled to Israel in early June; he was followed in late June by
Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Both officials
explained to their Israeli counterparts why the United States believes an attack
isn't necessary now, because the Iranians can't yet build a nuclear weapon, and
why an attack would damage U.S. national interests.

McConnell and Mullen
also informed the Israelis that the United States would oppose overflights of
Iraqi airspace to attack Iran, an administration official said. The United
States has reassured the Iraqi government that it would not approve Israeli
overflights, after the Iraqis strongly protested any potential violation of
their sovereignty.

"We have made our position abundantly clear to the
Israelis and indeed to the world, not just in our public statements but in our
private conversations, as well," said Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell.

Though the administration has often been portrayed as divided over
military options against Iran, an official denied there are now any sharp rifts.
"There is uniformity across the U.S. government about the way to proceed with
Iran," the official said. "Everyone from this White House, including the vice
president's office, is in agreement that the military option is not the best
option at this point, and we should pursue diplomatic and economic pressures."

U.S. opposition to an Israeli military strike now is based on four
factors, the official said. First, a strike would retard the Iranian nuclear
program without destroying it. (One intelligence estimate is that an attack
would delay the Iranians by just two months to two years.) Second, a strike
would rally support for the unpopular government of President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad when he faces growing economic difficulty. Third, an attack would
undermine U.S. policy in Iraq, when the United States appears to be making some
progress, and in Afghanistan. And, finally, a strike against Iran, as with any
military action, would have unpredictable consequences.

In evaluating
the Iranian nuclear threat, the United States and Israel are using different
intelligence. U.S. analysts believe Iran can't produce a bomb before the end of
2009 and probably not until the 2010--2015 time frame, according to a senior
U.S. intelligence official. The Israelis, however, fear that Iran could enrich
enough uranium for a weapon sometime next year. By late 2009, the Israelis warn,
the Iranians could produce the 1,000 kilograms of low-enriched uranium that
could quickly be converted to the 25 kilos of highly enriched fuel needed for a
bomb.

Reassuring the Israelis of U.S. resolve toward Iran will be a
tricky challenge for the next administration. A pro-Israel think tank, the
Washington Institute for Near East Policy, has already tried to lock in a
consensus policy through a high-level task force that included advisers to both
presidential campaigns.

The June 2008 report of the institute advocated
"preventive military action" against Iran and warned: "An American commitment to
deterrence, especially if seen by Israelis as a substitute for prevention, is
itself likely to spur Israel to consider independent action." Among the
signatories were Anthony Lake and Susan Rice, senior advisers in the Obama
campaign, even though Obama is nominally committed to seeking diplomatic talks
with Iran.

The crunch on the Iranian nuclear issue will come next year,
when there are new governments in Israel and the United States -- and a volatile
presidential election scheduled in Iran. For now the United States and its
allies, including Israel, seem willing to pursue the diplomatic track. But if
that doesn't work -- and there are no signs yet that Tehran is willing to bend
-- all the deadly options will remain on the table.