U.S., Israel considering joint 'surgical strike' on Iran's nuclear facilities

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. I hope the guy is talking out of his arse, but it may be worth parsing his words

Here's his FP blog: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/10/08/wanted_a_truly_credible_military_threat_to_iran

What he says is:

Despite the public histrionics in the run-up to the U.N. General Assembly meetings, both White House and Israeli officials assert that the two sides behind the scenes have come closer together in their views in recent days. While there may not be exact agreement on what constitutes a "red line" -- a sign of Iranian progress toward the development of nuclear weapons that would trigger military action -- the military option being advocated by the Israelis is considerably more limited and lower risk than some of those that have been publicly debated.

Indeed, according to a source close to the discussions, the action that participants currently see as most likely is a joint U.S.-Israeli surgical strike targeting Iranian enrichment facilities. The strike might take only "a couple of hours" in the best case and only would involve a "day or two" overall, the source said, and would be conducted by air, using primarily bombers and drone support. Advocates for this approach argue that not only is it likely to be more politically palatable in the United States but, were it to be successful -- meaning knocking out enrichment facilities, setting the Iranian nuclear program back many years, and doing so without civilian casualties -- it would have regionwide benefits. One advocate asserts it would have a "transformative outcome: saving Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, reanimating the peace process, securing the Gulf, sending an unequivocal message to Russia and China, and assuring American ascendancy in the region for a decade to come."

Now, I don't think that means he is saying the most likely outcome is a joint attack; I think it's saying that, if there is a military strike, then the most likely form it will take is a joint bombing one. And the fuzziness of "a source close to the discussions" may mean it's just some neocon, either in the USA or Israel, indulging in wishful thinking, even if they are involved in talks somehow. The advocate claiming a "transformative outcome" sounds delusional - hopefully they're someone not actually involved in government in any country. Daniel Pipes or John Bolton, perhaps.