Mossad: Israel Shouldn't Attack Iran Without U.S. Approval

I'm guessing that when the Mossad speaks, you really should listen.  And the Mossad is recommending that Israel needs to gain approval from the U.S. before an operation to take out the Iranian nukes.

From the report at The Jerusalem Post:

Israel should not -- and likely will not -- act against Iran's nuclear program without the consent of its closest ally, the United States, Former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy told Channel 2 Saturday night.

"It would not be wise for Israel to operate on its own, and I believe it won't," Halevy said. "I didn't say [Israel] won't act alone, but I think it won't do something that is against American interests."

Now, I've been saying the same thing for a very long time - I think Israel faces a daunting task in taking out Iran's nukes - it ain't gonna be few bombs dropped from high up to take out those nuclear facilities buried deep in the fortified earth in Iran.  At the same time, when the Israelis do it they are certain to unleash holy hell from Lebanon and quite frankly, Hezbollah's rockets and missiles will occupy Israel for two weeks.  Throw in the unknown of what Egypt will do and it reeks for Israel to do this thing all on their own.

Halevy: Israel should not strike Iran without US approval


Israel should not -- and likely will not -- act against Iran's nuclear program without the consent of its closest ally, the United States, Former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy told Channel 2 Saturday night.

"It would not be wise for Israel to operate on its own, and I believe it won't," Halevy said. "I didn't say [Israel] won't act alone, but I think it won't do something that is against American interests."

A further problem, he explained, is that there is no telling how far back a military strike will set the program. Within ten years of Israel's attack on Iraq's Osiraq reactor, Saddam Hussein rebooted the program in triplicate, he said. If there were a guarantee of stopping Iran's nuclear pursuit altogether, a military strike would be more attractive.

While emphasizing that he was "convinced we must do everything to prevent Iran from the ability or desire to develop such a weapon," Halevy also said that the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran would not be existential. "It is a serious threat, perhaps the most serious that we've ever seen," he said. "It's not existential."

Halevy expanded on the controversial comments he made to the New York Times on Wednesday, in which he said "If I were an Iranian, I would be very scared of the next 12 weeks."

The coming weeks, he explained, will be crucial for Iran on several important fronts given the deterioration in Syria, the impasse of nuclear negotiations and the increasing bite of US and EU sanctions. Should negotiations remain frozen, he said, they will be accepted as a failure, leaving Israel few options but to attack its nuclear facilities.

"I don't think they have anything but the next few weeks to act," he said. But a number of hopeful signs coming from Iran provide reason to hope that Israel would not have to act. "We may not attack because they may fold," Halevy said, citing rumors that Iran was preparing to change their delegation to the nuclear talks, and recent public statements that their international position had entered a "sensitive" time.

On Friday, General Mohammad Ali Jafari, commander of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC) posted a message on the IRGC website saying, "We have reached a very sensitive and fateful stage."