Mossad vs. Mousavi
The head of Mossad, Meir Dagan, says it's better for Israel if Ahmadinejad stays in power, according to Ha'aretz.
"The reality in Iran is not going to change because of the elections. The world and we already know [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad. If the reformist candidate [Mir Hossein] Mousavi had won, Israel would have had a more serious problem because it would need to explain to the world the danger of the Iranian threat, since Mousavi is perceived internationally arena as a moderate element..."
The language isn't surprising; we've been writing about this kind of talk for days. But I am surprised that the head of Mossad -- presumably a smart guy with access to good information -- thinks this is a good argument.
There are lots of unknowns about the Iranian nuclear program. But a few things are certain.
First, Israel cannot destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities with a single targeted strike. This is not another Osirak. Any offensive would be complicated, risky, and likely to fail.
It would also provoke a massive regional conflagration. The Sunni old guard -- Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia -- might not complain, but Hizballah and Hamas will attack Israel, and the Iranian-backed Syrian regime could also retaliate.
In other words: A successful attack on Iran's nuclear facilities is highly unlikely.
Given that, we know Iran will eventually have the capacity to build a nuclear bomb. We don't know if they'll actually build one -- but they certainly will have the capability to build one within the next five years.
And that begs the question: Who do you want as the president of a nuclear-armed Iran? A childish hard-liner like Ahmadinejad? Or someone more moderate -- someone who represents the millions of Iranians protesting in the streets right now, most of whom probably do not want a nuclear confrontation with Israel?






No Comments
Post a Comment