Global Research

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon have ordered the army to continue preparing for a possible military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities at a cost of at least 10 billion shekels ($2.89 billion) this year, despite the talks between Iran and the West, according to recent statements by senior military officers.

The IDF representatives said the army had received a clear directive from government officials from the political echelon – meaning Netanyahu and Ya’alon – to continue readying for a possible independent strike by Israel on the Iranian nuclear sites, regardless of the talks now happening between Iran and the West, the three MKs said.

….Ever since the interim accord between Iran and the six powers was reached, Netanyahu has stressed that Israel will not consider itself bound by it. …

Netanyahu has upped his rhetoric on the Iranian issue, and is again making implied threats about a possible unilateral Israeli strike on the Iranian nuclear sites.

[Defense Minister] Ya’alon recently indicated … that his view has shifted and he is now likely to support a unilateral Israeli strike on Iran, in light of his assessment that the Obama administration will not do so. (Barak Ravid, Netanyahu orders IDF to prepare for possible strike on Iran during 2014,  Haaretz, March 19, 2014) 

Israel’s Role as a US Military Proxy: “Doing the Bombing for Us”

It is important to analyze these latest threats in a broader context.  While Israel is part of a military alliance,  it cannot wage a war on Iran on its own. This is something which is known and recognized by military analysts.

An attack on Iran is part of a coordinated operation led by the Pentagon, which  has been envisaged since the mid-1990s as part of a strategic “sequencing” of theater operations. During the Clinton administration, US Central Command (USCENTCOM) had formulated “in war theater plans” to invade first Iraq and then Iran.

Israel is integrated into the “war plan for major combat operations” against Iran first formulated in 2006 by US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM). In the context of large scale military operations, an uncoordinated unilateral military action by one coalition partner, namely Israel, is from a military and strategic standpoint almost an impossibility. Israel is a de facto member of NATO. Any action by Israel would require a “green light” from Washington.

An attack by Israel (approved by US-NATO) could, however, be used as “the trigger mechanism” which would unleash an all out war against Iran, as well as retaliation by Iran directed against Israel.

While Israel does not decide, Israel may be used by Washington as a proxy, namely to fire the first shot, without the US being officially involved.

In this regard, there are indications that Washington is still envisaging the option first formulated during the Bush Jr Administration of an initial (US backed) attack by Israel rather than an outright US-led military operation directed against Iran.

While the Israel first strike option does not officially have the blessing of the Obama administration, let us be under no illusions, it has, for several years been part of the Pentagon’s war plans.

Its called “indirect warfare” whereby US proxies (including Israel) wage war on behalf of Uncle Sam and in liaison with the Pentagon.

This strategy of involving allies to “do the dirty work” has characterized several US sponsored military undertakings including Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and to lesser extent Iraq.  In Syria, the covert terrorist war was largely waged with the support of Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar, in close coordination with the US.

“Defending Israel”

Were it to be launched by Netanyahu, an Israeli attack on Iran –although led in close liaison with the Pentagon and NATO– would be presented to public opinion as a unilateral decision by Tel Aviv. It could then be used by Washington to justify, in the eyes of World opinion, a broader military intervention of the US and NATO (on humanitarian grounds) with a view to “defending Israel”, rather than attacking Iran. Under existing military cooperation agreements, both the US and NATO would be “obligated” to “defend Israel” against Iran.

It is worth noting, in this regard, that at the outset of Bush’s second term, (former) Vice President Dick Cheney defined in no uncertain terms, the proxy role of Israel.

[Dick Cheney with Israel’s Defense Minister Eyud Barak and IDF officers, October 2007]

Israel would, so to speak, “be doing the bombing for us”, without US military involvement and without us putting pressure on them “to do it” (See Michel Chossudovsky, Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran, Global Research, May 1, 2005): According to Cheney:

“One of the concerns people have is that Israel might do it without being asked… Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards,” (Dick Cheney, quoted from an MSNBC Interview,January 2005, emphasis added)

The political intent of this  diabolical statement by the former Vice president is crystal clear: the destruction of Israel is tantamount to “collateral damage”.

Netanyahu is a US puppet.  A “first strike attack” by Israel has, for the last ten years, been contemplated by US military planners. In the case of an attack, Israel rather than the US would bear the brunt of Iran’s retaliation.

Our message to the people of Israel: remove Netanyahu, call for peace in the Middle East, implement “regime change” in Tel Aviv.