FILE NAME

DDI 2008 <GT>

Your Name

No Strikes................................................................................................................................................................2
No Strikes................................................................................................................................................................3
Bush Won’t Strike..................................................................................................................................................4
Bush Will Strike.....................................................................................................................................................5
Obama  Bush/Israel Strike................................................................................................................................6
No U.S.-Led Israeli Strike.....................................................................................................................................7
Elections Don’t Affect Israeli Strike.....................................................................................................................8
No Israeli Strike.....................................................................................................................................................9
No Israeli Strike...................................................................................................................................................10
Yes Israel Strikes..................................................................................................................................................11
Impact Turn Shield..............................................................................................................................................12
Strikes Fail............................................................................................................................................................13

1
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <GT>
Your Name

No Strikes
No Iran strikes – high oil prices, public and key military commanders’
opposition

Tom Engelhardt, co-founder of the American Empire Project, runs the Nation Institute's TomDispatch.com, 7-11-08, “Why The
U.S. Won’t Attack Iran”, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JG11Ak03.html
For those eager to launch a reasonably no-pain campaign against Iran, the moment is already long gone. Every leap in the price of
oil only emphasizes the pain to come. In turn, that means, with every passing day, it's madder - and harder - to launch such an
attack. There is already significant opposition within the administration; the American people, feeling pain, are unprepared for and,
as polls indicate, massively unwilling to sanction such an attack. There can be no question that the Bush legacy, such as it is, would be
secured in infamy forever and a day. Now, consider recent administration actions on North Korea. Facing a "reality" that first-term Bush
officials would have abjured, the president and his advisors not only negotiated with that nuclearized "axis of evil" nation, but are now removing
it from the Trading with the Enemy Act list and the State Sponsor of Terrorism list. No matter what steps Kim Jong-il's regime has taken,
including blowing up the cooling tower at the Yongbyon reactor, this is nothing short of a stunning reversal for this administration. An angry
Bolton, standing in for the Cheney faction, compared what happened to a "police truce with the Mafia". And Cheney's anger over the decision -
and the policy - was visible and widely reported. It's possible, of course, that Cheney and associates are simply holding their fire for what they
care most about, but here's another question that needs to be considered: does Bush actually support his imperial vice president in the manner he
once did? There's no way to know, but Bush has always been a more important figure in the administration than many critics like to imagine. The
North Korean decision indicates that Cheney may not have a free hand from the president on Iran policy either. The adults in the room And
what about the opposition? I'm not talking about those of us out here who would oppose such a strike. I mean within the world of
Bush's Washington. Forget the Democrats. They hardly count and, as Hersh has pointed out, their leadership already signed off on that $400
million covert destabilization campaign. I mean the adults in the room, who have been in short supply indeed these last years in the Bush
administration, specifically Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen. (Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice evidently falls into this camp as well, although she's proven herself something of a president-enabling nonentity over the
years.) With former president Jimmy Carter's national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, Gates tellingly co-chaired a task force sponsored
by the Council on Foreign Relations in 2004 which called for negotiations with Iran. He arrived at the Pentagon early in 2007 as an envoy from
the world of former president George H W Bush and as a man on a mission. He was there to staunch the madness and begin the clean up in the
imperial Augean stables. In his Congressional confirmation hearings, he was absolutely clear: any attack on Iran would be a "very last resort".
Sometimes, in the bureaucratic world of Washington, a single "very" can tell you what you need to know. Until then, administration officials had
been referring to an attack on Iran simply as a "last resort". He also offered a bloodcurdling scenario for what the aftermath of such an American
attack might be like: It's always awkward to talk about hypotheticals in this case. But I think that while Iran cannot attack us directly militarily, I
think that their capacity to potentially close off the Persian Gulf to all exports of oil, their potential to unleash a significant wave of terror both in
the - well, in the Middle East and in Europe and even here in this country is very real ... Their ability to get Hezbollah to further destabilize
Lebanon I think is very real. So I think that while their ability to retaliate against us in a conventional military way is quite limited, they have the
capacity to do all of the things, and perhaps more, that I just described. And perhaps more ... That puts it in a nutshell. Hersh, in his most recent
piece on the administration's covert program in Iran, reports the following: A Democratic senator told me that, late last year, in an off-the-record
lunch meeting, Secretary of Defense Gates met with the Democratic caucus in the Senate. (Such meetings are held regularly.) Gates
warned of the consequences if the Bush administration staged a preemptive strike on Iran, saying, as the senator recalled, "We'll
create generations of jihadists, and our grandchildren will be battling our enemies here in America." Gates' comments stunned the
Democrats at the lunch. In other words, in 2007, early and late, the US's new secretary of defense managed to sound remarkably
like one of those Iranian officials issuing warnings. Gates, who has a long history as a skilled Washington in-fighter, has once again
proven that skill. So far, he seems to have outmaneuvered the Cheney faction. The March "resignation" of CENTCOM commander Admiral
William J Fallon, outspokenly against an administration strike on Iran, sent both a shiver of fear through war critics and a new set of attack
scenarios coursing through the political Internet, as well as into the world of the mainstream media. As reporter Lobe points out at his invaluable
Lobelog blog, however, Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and Gates' man in the Pentagon, has proven nothing
short of adamant when it comes to the inadvisability of attacking Iran. His recent public statements have actually been stronger than
Fallon's (and the position he fills is obviously more crucial than CENTCOM commander). Lobe comments that, at a July 2 press conference at
the Pentagon, Mullen "repeatedly made clear that he opposes an attack on Iran - whether by Israel or his own forces - and, moreover, favors
dialogue with Tehran, without the normal White House nuclear preconditions." Mullen, being an adult, has noticed the obvious. As columnist
Jay Bookman of the Atlanta Constitution put the matter recently: "A US attack on Iran's nuclear installations would create trouble that we aren't
equipped to handle easily, not with ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Adm Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, drove that
point home in a press conference last week at the Pentagon."
[Card Continues Next Page]

2
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <GT>
Your Name

No Strikes
[Card Continues]
The weight of reality Here's the point: yes, there is a powerful faction in this administration, headed by the vice president, which has, it
seems, saved its last rounds of ammunition for a strike against Iran. The question, of course, is: are they still capable of creating
"their own reality" and imposing it, however briefly, on the planet? Every tick upwards in the price of oil says no. Every day
that passes makes an attack on Iran harder to pull off. On this subject, panic may be everywhere in the world of the political Internet,
and even in the mainstream, but it's important not to make the mistake of overestimating these political actors or underestimating the forces
arrayed against them. It's a reasonable proposition today - as it wasn't perhaps a year ago - that, whatever their desires, they will not, in the
end, be able to launch an attack on Iran; that, even where there's a will, there may not be a way. They would have to act, after
all, against the unfettered opposition of the American people; against leading military commanders who, even if obliged to
follow a direct order from the president, have other ways to make their wills known; against key figures in the
administration; and, above all, against reality which bears down on them with a weight that is already staggering - and still
growing.

3
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <GT>
Your Name

Bush Won’t Strike

Bush won’t strike – lame duck & military commanders oppose, diplomacy
prevailing

Glenn Kessler, Washington Post Staff Writer, 7-10-08, “Iran Launches Nine Test Missiles, Says More Are Ready”,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/09/AR2008070902395_pf.html
Iran test-fired nine missiles yesterday -- including at least one capable of striking Israel -- and asserted that thousands more are
"ready for launch," but Bush administration officials played down the possibility of military action against the Islamic republic and
belittled Tehran's claims of progress on its nuclear program. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told reporters the world is not
closer to a military confrontation, even though Iran's missile launch came just days after Israel conducted a high-profile military
exercise in the Mediterranean. "What we're seeing is a lot of signaling going on," he said, adding that both Israel and Iran
"understand [the] consequences" of military action. Undersecretary of State William J. Burns told Congress that "we view force as
an option that is on the table, but a last resort." He said the United States and its allies have made progress in thwarting Iran's
nuclear ambitions, saying: "While deeply troubling, Iran's real nuclear progress has been less than the sum of its boasts." The
Bush administration's statements contrasted with tougher talk by the presidential candidates. Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the
presumptive Republican nominee, issued a statement against Iran yesterday morning that the tests "demonstrate again the dangers
it poses to its neighbors and to the wider region, especially Israel." Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said that the missile launches show
"the threat from Iran's nuclear program is real and it is grave," and that it is necessary to begin "direct, aggressive and sustained
diplomacy." The two campaigns then squabbled over whether Obama had supported strong action against the Iranian
Revolutionary Guards. With only six months remaining in President Bush's term, senior officials have repeatedly dismissed the
possibility of military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities. Instead, the administration has stepped up diplomacy, both
toughening sanctions and joining other leading nations in sweetening incentives for Iran to suspend its nuclear activities and
begins serious negotiations. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last month even signed a joint letter to the Iranian foreign
minister offering the deal, though the administration has refused thus far to allow a senior U.S. official to join other foreign
officials in talks in Tehran. "This government is working hard to make sure that the diplomatic and economic approach to dealing
with Iran -- and trying to get the Iranian government to change its policies -- is the strategy and is the approach that continues to
dominate," Gates said. "At this point, I'm comfortable that that remains the case."

Bush won’t strike – ignoring neo-cons and working towards diplomatic

resolution

David Isenberg, analyst in national and international security affairs & adjunct scholar with the Cato Institute, 7-19-08, “A reality
check on Iran”, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/
JG19Ak02.html
Yet, ironically, the George W Bush administration, is, at least for the moment, ignoring the calls of the neo-conservatives, and
is pushing forward with some of the highest-level diplomacy with Iran since the 1979 Iranian revolution. Bush is sending
Under Secretary of State William Burns, third in line at the State Department, to talks this weekend aimed at curbing Iran's
nuclear ambitions. He is traveling to Geneva with the European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, to talk to Iran's
main nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili. The move is reportedly fully supported by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The
initiative includes plans by the US to post diplomats in Tehran for the first time since the revolution in the form of a US
Interests Section - a move halfway to setting up an embassy, subject to approval by Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad.
Iran already has such a section based in Washington. For those hardliners who want to overthrow the Iranian government, not
cooperate with it, these are unsettling moves. And a new monograph by the RAND Corporation, a prominent US think-tank
which has long produced reports on various national security issues for the US Air Force, will likely only worsen their mood.

4
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <GT>
Your Name

Bush Will Strike

Bush will strike – nothing to lose

John Jessup, CBN News Washington Correspondent, 7-10-08, "Take 2: Iran Test-fires More Missiles",
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/406751.aspx

This week, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dismissed the possibility of war with the U.S. or Israel as "a funny
joke."But administration officials see this as anything but a laughing matter."The reality is that there is a lot of signaling going
on, but I think everybody recognizes what the consequences of any kind of a conflict would be," Defense Secretary Robert Gates
said.In response, Israel today is putting an advanced spy plane on public display. It's equipped with sophisticated intelligence systems
to collect information on Iran's nuclear program, raising suspicion that an attack may be imminent.Terrorism analyst Daveed
Gartentenstein Ross said the possibility of an Israeli strike on Iran this year was "well under 50 percent."He added, "On the flip side…
Bush is a lame duck and he wouldn't have a whole lot of political capital to lose," Ross told CBN News.Despite all the rhetoric
and the show of force, the Bush administration says it is committed to a diplomatic and economic approach to dealing with Iran and
trying to get the regime to peacefully resolve its differences with the international community.

5
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <GT>
Your Name

Obama  Bush/Israel Strike

Obama victory would cause Bush or Israel to strike

Tom Engelhardt, co-founder of the American Empire Project, runs the Nation Institute's TomDispatch.com, 7-11-08, “Why The
U.S. Won’t Attack Iran”, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JG11Ak03.html
Hersh, who certainly has his ear to the ground in Washington, has publicly suggested that a victory by Democratic Senator
Barack Obama in the presidential race might be the signal for the Bush administration to launch an air campaign against that
country. As Jim Lobe of Inter Press Service has pointed out, there have been a number of "public warnings by US hawks close
to Cheney's office that either the Israelis or the US would attack Iran between the November elections and the inaugural of a
new president in January 2009".
*Seymour Hersh, the US's premier investigative reporter

6
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <GT>
Your Name

No U.S.-Led Israeli Strike

The U.S. won’t have Israel attack – fails to destroy Iranian nuclear program,
gives Ahmadinejad support, undermine U.S. policy in Iraq, and has
unpredictable consequences.

The Washington Post, August 3, 2008, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-

dyn/content/article/2008/08/01/AR2008080102872.html
Analysts speculate about the danger of a U.S. or Israeli military attack on Iran before the Bush administration departs office
next January. But if you read the tea leaves carefully, the evidence is actually pointing in the opposite direction. One sign that
the diplomatic track is dominant for now is that the administration plans to announce late this month that it will open an interest
section in Tehran, a senior official disclosed Thursday. This will be an important symbol, as it will be the first American
diplomatic mission in Iran since the U.S. Embassy there was seized in 1979. The official described it as an effort to "reach out
to the Iranian people." The Iranian government has long had an interest section in Washington. The administration's wariness of
military options is also clear from recent efforts to dissuade Israel from attacking Iranian nuclear facilities. Mike McConnell,
the director of national intelligence, traveled to Israel in early June; he was followed in late June by Adm. Michael Mullen,
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Both officials explained to their Israeli counterparts why the United States believes an
attack isn't necessary now, because the Iranians can't yet build a nuclear weapon, and why an attack would damage U.S.
national interests. McConnell and Mullen also informed the Israelis that the United States would oppose overflights of Iraqi
airspace to attack Iran, an administration official said. The United States has reassured the Iraqi government that it would not
approve Israeli overflights, after the Iraqis strongly protested any potential violation of their sovereignty. "We have made our
position abundantly clear to the Israelis and indeed to the world, not just in our public statements but in our private
conversations, as well," said Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell. Though the administration has often been portrayed as
divided over military options against Iran, an official denied there are now any sharp rifts. "There is uniformity across the U.S.
government about the way to proceed with Iran," the official said. "Everyone from this White House, including the vice
president's office, is in agreement that the military option is not the best option at this point, and we should pursue diplomatic
and economic pressures." U.S. opposition to an Israeli military strike now is based on four factors, the official said. First, a
strike would retard the Iranian nuclear program without destroying it. (One intelligence estimate is that an attack would delay
the Iranians by just two months to two years.) Second, a strike would rally support for the unpopular government of President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when he faces growing economic difficulty. Third, an attack would undermine U.S. policy in Iraq,
when the United States appears to be making some progress, and in Afghanistan. And, finally, a strike against Iran, as with any
military action, would have unpredictable consequences.

7
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <GT>
Your Name

Elections Don’t Affect Israeli Strike

Elections won’t affect Israel’s decision of whether or not to strike

Michael Hirsh, writer Newsweek, 8-1-08, “Why Israel Won’t Change”, http://www.newsweek.com/id/149806
Some things will change for Israel and its chief ally, the United States, when Prime Minister Ehud Olmert resigns. But most
things won't-especially the big things. Israel still faces at least four major strategic choices: how to resolve the faltering peace
talks with the Palestinians, how to deal with the growing power of Hezbollah in Lebanon, whether to maintain the fragmentary
ceasefire with Hamas, and above all whether take military action against Iran. And it doesn't much matter who the next prime
minister is—or even the next U.S. president: the choices that Israel makes will likely be the same.

8
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <GT>
Your Name

No Israeli Strike
Israel not going to attack – U.S. and Israel are just using psychological warfare
against the Iranians
Robert MacMillan, August 3, 2008, http://www.reuters.com/article/newsMaps/idUSN0344178120080803
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The chances of a U.S. or Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities is remote because the risks to the
global economy far outweigh potential benefits, according to the founder and head of global intelligence company Stratfor,
Barron's reported on Sunday. The U.S. stance that "all options are on the table" regarding Iran has in fact had a salutary effect
on the U.S.-Iran relationship, Stratfor's George Friedman told Barron's, adding that the two countries even have taken steps
toward diplomatic rapprochement after 29 years of enmity. Friedman, whose company's clients include mega-retailer Wal-Mart
Inc as well as media outlets and government agencies, told Barron's that the United States and Israel are likely using
"psychological warfare" rather than preparing for the real thing.

Israel won’t strike Iran – economic costs, pyschologcal intimidation, lack of

U.S. support
Jonathon R. Laing, August 2, 2008,
http://online.barrons.com/article/SB121764266163806675.html?mod=googlenews_barrons
THE MARKETS HAVE BEEN buzzing for months about an imminent attack by the U.S. or Israel on Iran's nuclear facilities.
Don't bet on it -- or on oil prices heading higher as a result of hostilities. According to recent rumors, the U.S. and Israel have been
pushed to the brink by Iran's stonewalling, in the face of global diplomacy aimed at persuading the country to suspend its nuclear-enrichment
program and abandon its ambitions to join the nuclear-weapons club. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad hasn't helped the situation
with his defiant rhetoric, and a penchant for posing in a lab coat against a backdrop of uranium-enriching centrifuges. Renowned
investigative reporter Seymour Hersh wrote last month in a lengthy story in the New Yorker that such an attack is likely to come before U.S.
President George Bush leaves office next January. Both the U.S. and Israel already have special-operations teams active inside Iran, gathering
intelligence and seeking to destabilize the country and prepare the battlefield, Hersh's sources told him. Yet, the possibility of an attack on
Iran seems remote to George Friedman, founder and head of Stratfor, the Austin, Texas-based global-intelligence company. The
risks to the global economy of such a move far outweigh any potential benefits, he says, especially as Iran poses what he views
as a negligible nuclear threat. America's "all-options-are-on-the-table" bluff seems to have had a salutary effect, Friedman says.
For example, Iran has helped reduce the level of sectarian violence in Iraq in the past six months by reining in some of the
rogue Shiite militias that it trains and supports. Likewise, the U.S. and Iran have begun to take tentative steps toward
diplomatic rapprochement after 29 years of enmity, he notes. Geopolitics is Stratfor's métier, and under Friedman, who holds a Ph.D. in
political science, the company takes an academic approach to the subject, rigorously analyzing the information it gleans from sources around
the world. These include local newspapers, government publications, Internet informants on the ground in different countries, and other overt
and covert fact-finders. Barron's consistently has found Stratfor's insights informative and largely on the money -- as has the company's large
client base, which ranges from corporations to media outlets and government agencies. The Iran-attack story gained widespread
credence after the New York Times reported June 20 that more than 100 Israeli aircraft had participated several weeks earlier in
a military exercise over the eastern Mediterranean, near Greece. The distance from Israel was roughly 900 miles, the same as
that separating Israel from Iran, and the exercise was viewed as a trial run for a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. Just a day
later, the Times of London quoted Israeli military sources who confirmed the "dress rehearsal" nature of the exercise, while a
story in the Jerusalem Post alluded to previous statements made by Israeli intelligence officials who said Iran would cross an
unspecified nuclear threshold in 2008, not 2009, as expected. THE SABER-RATTLING BY unnamed officials smacks of
psychological warfare to Friedman, however -- not preparations for the real thing. "Why would Israel telegraph its punch like
that?" he asks. "Recall that when Israel took out Iraq's Osirak reactor back in 1981, it was successful precisely because it gave
no hint at all of an impending attack." An Israeli attack on Iran would require the close cooperation of the U.S., Friedman says,
due to the distance involved. Israeli rescue helicopters would have to be flown to American air bases in Iraq before an attack,
while refueling planes would have to orbit Iraqi airspace during the onslaught. "The U.S. would be better off doing the attack
itself, since [it] will get much of the blame and opprobrium in the Middle East" even if Israel is the aggressor, he argues. Friedman
says it's possible that the aircraft maneuvers were a diversionary tactic designed to distract Iran from coming cruise missile attacks or
commando raids on its territory. It's far more likely that the U.S. and Israel are attempting merely to intimidate Iran, in an effort to
make it more tractable in ending its nuclear program and support for sectarian violence in Iraq. In Friedman's estimation, any
major attack on Iran could have grave repercussions for the global economy. Most likely, Iran would attack oil tankers in the Persian
Gulf and mine the Strait of Hormuz, through which 17 million barrels of oil -- or about 40% of all seaborne traded crude-oil traffic -- passes
each day, along with a significant share of global production of liquefied natural gas.

9
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <GT>
Your Name

No Israeli Strike
Israel won’t strike – boosting economic and diplomatic pressure

Glenn Kessler, Washington Post Staff Writer, 7-10-08, “Iran Launches Nine Test Missiles, Says More Are Ready”,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/09/AR2008070902395_pf.html
"Israel's preference has been to solve this peacefully," said Israel's U.S. ambassador, Sallai Meridor. "For that to have a chance,
it will take a dramatic increase in the economic and diplomatic pressure on Iran."

Israel won’t strike – too politically risky, would be perceived as starting

American war

Tom Engelhardt, co-founder of the American Empire Project, runs the Nation Institute's TomDispatch.com, 7-11-08, “Why The
U.S. Won’t Attack Iran”, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JG11Ak03.html
Let's leave to the experts the question of whether Israel could actually launch an effective air strike against Iranian nuclear
facilities on its own - about which there are grave doubts. And let's instead try to imagine what it would mean for Israel to
launch such an assault (egged on by the vice president's faction in the US government) in the last months, or even weeks, of the
second term of an especially lame lame-duck president and an historically unpopular administration. From Iran's foreign
minister, we already know that the Iranians would treat an Israeli attack as if it were an American one, whether or not American
planes were involved - and little wonder. For one thing, Israeli planes heading for Iran would undoubtedly have to cross Iraqi
air space, at present controlled by the United States, not the nearly air-force-less Maliki government. (In fact, in Status of
Forces Agreement negotiations with the Iraqis, the Bush administration has demanded that the US retain control of that air
space, up to 29,000 feet (8,839 meters), after December 31, 2008, when the United Nations mandate runs out.) In other words,
on the eve of the arrival of a new American administration, Israel, a small, vulnerable Middle Eastern state deeply reliant on its
American alliance, would find itself responsible for starting an American war (associated with a vice president of unparalleled
unpopularity) and for a global oil shock of staggering proportions, if not a global great depression. It would also be the
proximate cause for a regional "fireball". (Oil-poor Israel would undoubtedly also be economically wounded by its own strike.)
In addition, the latest American National Intelligence Estimate on Iran concluded that the Iranians stopped weaponizing parts
of their nuclear program in 2003, and American intelligence reputedly doubts recent Israeli warnings that Iran is on the verge of
a bomb. Of course, Israel itself has an estimated - though unannounced - nuclear force of about 200 such weapons. Simply
put, it is next to inconceivable that the present riven Israeli government would be politically capable of launching such an
attack on Iran on its own, or even in combination with only a faction, no matter how important, in the US government. And
such a point is more or less taken for granted by many Israelis (and Iranians). Without a full-scale "green light" from the Bush
administration, launching such an attack could be tantamount to long-term political suicide. Only in conjunction with an
American attack would an Israeli attack (rash to the point of madness even then) be likely. So let's turn to the Bush
administration and consider what might be called the Hersh scenario.

10
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <GT>
Your Name

Yes Israel Strikes

Bush and Obama may not strike, but Israel will – Olmert wants to increase his
popularity

Newsmax, 7-13-08, “Report: Bush Backs Israel Strike Plans on Iran”,

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/bush_iran_attack/2008/07/13/112320.html
Political factors may be playing a role in strike plans for both Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Bush is in lame-
duck status, and Democratic Sen. Barack Obama, the front-runner to win the presidency in November, says he favors the use of
diplomacy over force when dealing with Iran. Olmert is facing a political crisis as corruption charges threaten his hold on
office. Some Israeli political analysts say Olmert may order an attack on Iran to bolster his political standing in
Jerusalem. The Times cited one of Olmert's closest friends as quoting the prime minister: "In three months’ time it will be a
different Middle East.”

Israeli strike inevitable during presidential transition – Bush is a lame duck &
U.S. military tied up in Iraq

Tom McGurk, Sunday Business Post, 7-13-08, “Sabre-rattling on Iran marks end of Bush era”,
http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=TOM+MCGURK-qqqs=commentandanalysis-qqqid=34395-qqqx=1.asp
The other nightmare scenario, of course, is that Israel might act unilaterally. In June 1981 it did just that, carrying out a
bombing raid on Iraq’s nuclear installations. There are some who think that this time the Israelis might calculate that, with the
current American presidency in lame duck mode, with Washington unable militarily to act given its commitments in Iraq and
Afghanistan - not to mention the unpredictability of the political future in Washington - there will never be a better time to
strike. One Israeli cabinet minister and former chief of staff, Shaul Mofaz, has said that an attack on Iran is ‘‘unavoidable’’ if it
‘‘continues with its nuclear programme’’. Indeed, the hawkish John Bolton, a former Bush UN ambassador, said last week that
Israel might think the best time to attack would be during America’s presidential transition - too late to be accused of
influencing the election and before needing a new president’s green light.

Israel will strike in the next 4 to 7 months – has Bush’s lame-duck support

Benny Morris, 7-18-08, a professor of Middle Eastern history at Ben-Gurion University, “Using Bombs to Stave Off War”,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/opinion/18morris.html
ISRAEL will almost surely attack Iran’s nuclear sites in the next four to seven months — and the leaders in Washington and even
Tehran should hope that the attack will be successful enough to cause at least a significant delay in the Iranian production schedule, if not
complete destruction, of that country’s nuclear program. Because if the attack fails, the Middle East will almost certainly face a nuclear war
— either through a subsequent pre-emptive Israeli nuclear strike or a nuclear exchange shortly after Iran gets the bomb. It is in the interest of
neither Iran nor the United States (nor, for that matter, the rest of the world) that Iran be savaged by a nuclear strike, or that both Israel and
Iran suffer such a fate. We know what would ensue: a traumatic destabilization of the Middle East with resounding political and military
consequences around the globe, serious injury to the West’s oil supply and radioactive pollution of the earth’s atmosphere and water. But
should Israel’s conventional assault fail to significantly harm or stall the Iranian program, a ratcheting up of the Iranian-Israeli
conflict to a nuclear level will most likely follow. Every intelligence agency in the world believes the Iranian program is geared toward
making weapons, not to the peaceful applications of nuclear power. And, despite the current talk of additional economic sanctions, everyone
knows that such measures have so far led nowhere and are unlikely to be applied with sufficient scope to cause Iran real pain, given Russia’s
and China’s continued recalcitrance and Western Europe’s (and America’s) ambivalence in behavior, if not in rhetoric. Western intelligence
agencies agree that Iran will reach the “point of no return” in acquiring the capacity to produce nuclear weapons in one to four years. Which
leaves the world with only one option if it wishes to halt Iran’s march toward nuclear weaponry: the military option, meaning an aerial assault
by either the United States or Israel. Clearly, America has the conventional military capacity to do the job, which would involve a
protracted air assault against Iran’s air defenses followed by strikes on the nuclear sites themselves. But, as a result of the Iraq
imbroglio, and what is rapidly turning into the Afghan imbroglio, the American public has little enthusiasm for wars in the
Islamic lands. This curtails the White House’s ability to begin yet another major military campaign in pursuit of a goal that is
not seen as a vital national interest by many Americans. Which leaves only Israel — the country threatened almost daily with
destruction by Iran’s leaders. Thus the recent reports about Israeli plans and preparations to attack Iran (the period from Nov. 5
to Jan. 19 seems the best bet, as it gives the West half a year to try the diplomatic route but ensures that Israel will have support
from a lame-duck White House).

11
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <GT>
Your Name

Impact Turn Shield

Prefer our impacts to their turns – Israeli strike inevitable, U.S. will get the
blame and face retaliation – it’s try or die for U.S. strikes

David Isenberg, analyst in national and international security affairs & adjunct scholar with the Cato Institute, 7-19-08, “A reality
check on Iran”, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/
JG19Ak02.html
Tehran test-fired some of its long-range ballistic missiles last week to signal that it is taking the threat of an attack by Israel or
the US seriously. Subsequently, John Bolton, former US ambassador to the United Nations, wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street
Journal, saying, "We should be intensively considering what cooperation the US will extend to Israel before, during and after a
strike on Iran. We will be blamed for the strike anyway, and certainly feel whatever negative consequences result, so there is
compelling logic to make it as successful as possible."

12
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <GT>
Your Name

Strikes Fail
Iran strikes fail to stop Iranian nuclear program and provoke retaliation

David Isenberg, analyst in national and international security affairs & adjunct scholar with the Cato Institute, 7-19-08, “A reality
check on Iran”, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/
JG19Ak02.html
But for neo-conservatives, the most alarming section of the RAND report is that discussing the likely domestic consequences of US
military actions against Iran if Iran's facilities were to be bombed - public support for any retaliation its government took would likely
be widespread. And at current oil prices, an attack would be unlikely to stop the Iranian nuclear program. The government would be
able to finance the reconstruction of the facility and continue the current program without major budgetary consequences. The
RAND report takes issue with the conservative position that an attack would lead to Ahmadinejad's comeuppance. It says, "In our
view, a more likely response would be a strong push to retaliate. Critics of such a policy would likely choose to keep silent."
According to Justin Logan, associate director of foreign policy studies at the libertarian CATO Institute in Washington, DC, "What it
highlights is that it indicates the problem with US pressure, it is counterproductive."

13