667
Trump will give Israel ‘blank check’ which may mean all-out war with Iran, says ex-CIA chief (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/world@lemmy.world
314 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Summary

Former CIA Director Leon Panetta warned that Trump’s return to the White House could embolden Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, giving him a "blank check" in the Middle East and increasing the risk of war with Iran.

Panetta expressed concern that Trump would support Netanyahu's aggressive stance against Iran without restraint, potentially worsening regional instability.

Panetta also predicted Trump might allow Russia to retain parts of Ukraine if he returns to office, though he doubted Trump’s negotiation skills.

He criticized Trump’s approach to foreign policy, suggesting Trump would be inclined to "capitulate" to authoritarian leaders, which may not sit well with some Republicans.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8 points 2 years ago (3 children)

I don't think you understand the capabilities difference - Israel has the nuclear option if they are threatened existentially. But lets take that off the table a moment.

Iran's capabilities are their missiles, manufacturing capabilities. Their Refineries, and strategic energy reserves are in known locations and are the lynch pin of Iran's economy. And finally, the Nuclear R&D facilities are in known places. All of those are the targets - and Israel absolutely has the capacity to take it out- just not the strong justification.

If Iran continues striking Israel, Israel is going to feel the pressure to decapitate Iran as a threat to them.

The fall out of this is more interesting:

  1. China loses access to Iranian Oil for the short to mid term - it will take time to restore capabilities.

  2. Russia loses access to Iranian missiles - without production capabilities, and depleted stocks, Iran will not be able to sell missiles to Russia let alone drones.

  3. Iran's economy will be in shambles - that could very well open the door to coup or revolt.

  4. Iran would unload as many missiles as it possibly could - which could be devastating. But that would come down to just how many interceptor missiles Israel would have available, along with other air defence options.

If you want a "Why would trump support this" - there you have it. It reaffirms US obligation to support it's allies, It puts economic pressure on china, and denies Russia access to weapons - which should help push them to the negotiating table.

In reality, I would more expect Iran to back off. Then again - With Israel obliterating Iran proxies, Iran may feel the pressure to complete a nuclear deterrent and Israel may end up wanting to decapitate Iran as a threat BEFORE they gain that capability... what a bloody mess.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago

    I dont dissagree. But for the rest of yall here, the point stands.

    Foreign policy is nuanced, multi layered, and gives no shits about your morality. Any of you that boil down the issue to palistine vs israel or race or religion, have no idea whats going on. Two state solutions are just to placate you while wholesale slaughter happens.

    This is about power and maintaining it. Always has been. And american, or western dominance in the region as a way to maintain what little peace exists, and not let our adversaries seize that control, is the end sum game.

    Im not saying its right. But superpowers and governments do not care about your moral hangups. A hundred thousand dead "someone else" vs a major strategic location means nothing. Appalling, sure, but there is a brutal logic to it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    That's all under the assumption that Iran didn't secretly develop nukes, or bought them from Russia or North Korea and just keeps it completely hidden to turn the tides at the last possible second.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Lets, for a moment, presume Iran has Nuclear weapons - and uses them. Lets just remind that Israel is known to have at LEAST 90 nuclear warheads, and several of those missiles are likely prepped ready pointed at Iran.

    To put it simply: That move DOES NOT end well. If anything, it ends strictly worse then simply accepting that Israel crippled Iran's infrastructure. And any hope for normalization and opening trade up on the global market outside of China, Russia, and North Korea becomes basically zero until the regime is overthrown. Even worse - if Israel opts for nuclear strikes to follow up their conventional ones after being attacked with nuclear weapons,there is a good chance it's not just several years of repair work, but decades of set back that could easily lead to mass scale discontentment and open revolt against the regime by several factions simultaneously.

    The reality is: Israel is not a force capable of sustained occupation of an entity like Iran. But they are a force capable of a decapitating strike. And the entire reason is, Israel has VERY LIMITED force projection capabilities - and, because of a lack of land boarder with Iran, would need cooperation with other states that may not be thrilled with opening themselves up to direct conflict in the short to mid term. The only real reason Israel has room to do a strike is 1. It's retaliatory, and 2. entities like Saudi Arabia are liable to be just fine with their regional rivals basically offing each other, as Saudi Arabia is in a MUCH better position to take advantage in the event of Iran's regime collapsing.

    Which brings us to: Just because you have nuclear weapons, does not mean you use them. The reality is, nuclear weapons are a weapon of last resort - unless you are France, and then it's a nuclear warning shot... Because France is just different.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent