Nukes

Today's good news is that Israeli agents snuck into a London hotel room and planted software in a Syrian official's laptop that enabled them to collect information on Syria's secret nuclear program. This set up the surprise air strike in September 2007 against a nearly completed reactor out in the eastern Syrian desert.

phooky/flickr

I see where representatives of the governments of Israel and Iran have been meeting secretly in Cairo to chat about nuclear weapons. I was surprised, but good for them. 

doneastwest/flickr

Here's a guest comment from a long note I got from a smart Army officer who has served multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Neglect his advice at your own peril, mateys. 

The President has to assume Commander-in-Chief role, sell the public on his new strategy, and own it. If not, this conflict will be a background effort and Taliban will win. Do not underestimate the Taliban. They want to govern and once they get the South, the other elements in the East and North will follow suit. And they can fight."

This angle hadn't occurred to me: The head of the Israeli Space Agency says that the Obama's decision to scrap the deployment of land-based missile defense systems to Eastern Europe is good for Israel. He explains that Israel benefits when U.S.-Russian relations improve:

"Thus far, American attempts to stop the development of an Iranian nuclear bomb have not succeeded -- partially because the Russians have not cooperated with their efforts," he explained. "It is possible that because of this concession -- and it is a concession, even if the Americans said that it was not -- the Russians will be more helpful on Iran and will more support the American initiative." 

I also wonder if he believes that having Europe feel a pang of the vulnerability Israel feels about Iran might improve Israel's international position.

AFP/Getty Images

"Iran is not going to produce a nuclear weapon any time soon and the threat posed by its atomic program has been exaggerated, the U.N. nuclear watchdog chief said in a published interview," Reuters reports.

"In many ways, I think the threat has been hyped," Mohamed ElBaradei, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

MICHAEL URBAN/AFP/Getty Images

I said I was gonna ignore North Korea, and I still intend to. But I was struck by this comment by proven provider John McCreary in his NightWatch:

During the past 40 years North Korean leaders have been blustery but fundamentally risk averse. They have done nothing that would risk the total destruction of their state -- which means Pyongyang for all practical and symbolic purposes -- until now.... The actions in the past two days represent risk accepting behavior, defiance bordering on recklessness. This behavior began shortly after Kim Chong-il's stroke in August 2008. If Kim is ordering these actions, he has had a personality change, which can occur if dementia follows a stroke, according to medical authorities."

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman says Israel will not attack Iran.

"We are not talking about a military attack," he told an interviewer. "Israel cannot resolve militarily the entire world's problem."

I think that view is correct. But him saying it gives me pause. I'd thought for a long time that the more Israeli officials talked about airstrikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, the less likely they were to happen. So what should I think now that the new government is taking that off the table?

xnir/Flickr

I'd be very surprised if Israel bombed Iran's nuclear facilities anytime soon, despite what a guy over at ForeignPolicy.com's cousin (or step-parent?) Slate is saying. He offers all sorts of complicated political analyses about why such an attack would be in Israel's interests.

I just don't see how Israel could physically do it as long as the Americans are in Iraq. Hitting Iran is a tough mission to begin with for Israeli aircraft. It would probably be impossible for Israeli aircraft to hit Iran without passing through Iraqi airspace -- and they could not do that without the Americans knowing and being able to stop them. Thus the U.S. government would be seen by Iraqis and others as an accomplice of the Israeli attack. The fallout of such a bombing would make life in Iraq very difficult for more than 130,000 U.S. troops, even before the Iranians embarked upon a course of retaliation that probably would include stepping up roadside bombings of U.S. forces.

Rather, I think the real danger time for Iran is when, if ever, we get U.S. troops out of Iraq. Then the coast will be clear for those Israeli refueling tankers and F-15s. What's more, we no longer will have 130,000 U.S. hostages in Iraq susceptible to Iranian violence, so the U.S. could join Israel in stepping up the pressure.       

xnir/Flickr