And so it goes. According to the NYT:
LINK: http://www.nytimes.com/...
President Bush deflected a secret request by Israel last year for specialized bunker-busting bombs it wanted for an attack on Iran’s main nuclear complex and told the Israelis that he had authorized new covert action intended to sabotage Iran’s suspected effort to develop nuclear weapons, according to senior American and foreign officials.
Last year, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel asked President Bush for bunker-busting bombs and permission to fly over Iraq to attack the plant.
White House officials never conclusively determined whether Israel had decided to go ahead with the strike before the United States protested, or whether Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel was trying to goad the White House into more decisive action before Mr. Bush left office. But the Bush administration was particularly alarmed by an Israeli request to fly over Iraq to reach Iran’s major nuclear complex at Natanz, where the country’s only known uranium enrichment plant is located.
The White House denied that request outright, American officials said, and the Israelis backed off their plans, at least temporarily. But the tense exchanges also prompted the White House to step up intelligence-sharing with Israel and brief Israeli officials on new American efforts to subtly sabotage Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, a major covert program that Mr. Bush is about to hand off to President-elect Barack Obama.
I say Gates because no one really believes Bush is making any decisions. But the NYT still gives Bush the credit. It's fascinating that Bush Co. would deny anyone the right to pre-emptive war given Iraq. Israel made three requests to Bush Co.
- Powerful bunker busters
- Refueling capabilities in order to reach Natanz, the presumed nuclear facility
- Permission to fly over Iraq.
Reading # 3 is kind of shocking, since we now "own" Iraq we can now hand over permission to Israel to pre-emptively strike another country via Iraq's airspace. Kind of funny how that would work. Looks like Gates has some sense and:
"we said ‘hell no’ to the overflights," one of his top aides said.
But like Bush Co. in Iraq, Israel does not believe the U.S. intelligence report by the NIE on Iran and decided it would go it alone and began to practice.
Last June, the Israelis conducted an exercise over the Mediterranean Sea that appeared to be a dry run for an attack on the enrichment plant at Natanz. When the exercise was analyzed at the Pentagon, officials concluded that the distances flown almost exactly equaled the distance between Israel and the Iranian nuclear site.
"This really spooked a lot of people," one White House official said. White House officials discussed the possibility that the Israelis would fly over Iraq without American permission. In that case, would the American military be ordered to shoot them down? If the United States did not interfere to stop an Israeli attack, would the Bush administration be accused of being complicit in it?
The article states that in the end the Israeli's determined that they would not be able to go the distance. Despite our strong alliance, it doesn't seem like Bush Co. holds any sway with Israel. Who knows what Condeleeza is asking them to do right now. They go their own way. Obviously Israel is a sovereign nation and doesn't need our permission for anything. But it's is quite shocking that it's would be willing to reject our advice and possibly fly over the country we now occupy putting our own soldiers at risk for their own aims and objectives. How would Bush Co have responded? Any different than our response to the Gaza invasion? Doubt it.
All this falls upon Obama in 10 days. He faces a mountain of expectations and fears. Fear that he won't be a strong ally with Israel and expectations that he'll provide more balance in terms of the I/P conflict. Obviously Israel is a determined ally and will probably attack Irans nuclear sites when it is able. If they wait too long, we (USA) won't have any say in what happens over the Iraqi's airspace. I doubt the Iran-backed government of Iraq is going to give them permission.
So what does this mean for Obama? My question after reading this article is how will Israel test Obama? No doubt they will test his loyalties early, is this part of the reason to go into Gaza so close to the inauguration? Perhaps this is reason enough to keep Gates, he said no before, so they less likely to come back to the same trough again. If Israel attacks Iran early in the administration, forcing Obama to support our ally, I fear that Obama's goodwill in the Muslim world will close up quickly. I now have more respect for the transition in their defense picks. Enemies and allies alike need to know that Obama will not be pushed around and perhaps having the old guard there to back him up is a good thing.
Who could really envy Obama? It seems like everyone is competing on who will be Obama's Greatest Challenge? Will it be Afghanistan, I/P, Pakistan, Iraq,Iran, or a Global Economic Collapse!?!