Amos Yadlin, how about factoring in what scholars of Islam say?

The 8 F-16 pilots who bombed Osirak

Yadlin, first row on the left

What can I say to the former F-16 fighter pilot who in June 1981 was one of the 8 pilots who bombed the Iraqi Osirak nuclear reactor ? What can I say to the former head of Aman, the Israeli Military Intelligence?  

I can say the same as to anyone else who in his reasoning skips over the most important facts about Iran. I suggest he read what scholars of Islam have to say else his analysis will be incomplete.

Yadlin: Israel's threat to strike Iran  'unhelpful'

By YAAKOV LAPPIN

02/04/2013 13:50

Ex-Intelligence chief says diplomatic solution better than military, adds Syria's weakened state benefits Israel's strategic standing.        

                      Of course a diplomatic solution would be better than military action, but how do you find a diplomatic solution with the Twelvers? From an article by Israel Kasnett  in the Jerusalem Post " Deterrence is Irrelevant"

                        Iran is led by a group of irrational men who believe they can hurry the arrival of the Mahdi – the 12th Imam who, according to Shi’ite Islamic tradition, went missing in 874 CE and will return under conditions ofglobal chaos. The Iranian leadership appears willing to sacrifice the population of its own country to achieve this goal. In his book The Rise of Nuclear Iran, former Israeli ambassador to the UN Dore Gold writes, “Mahdi Khaliji, an Iranian Shi’ite scholar… has noted that there are apocalyptic hadiths [received Shi’ite traditions] that the Mahdi will not return unless one-third of the world population is killed and another third die.

                      There is even less chance of find a diplomatic solution today than there was in June 1981 when Amos Yadlin was in the cockpit of his F-16 bombing Osirak

Israeli threats to strike Iran's nuclear program and send shock waves throughout the world are "unhelpful," and Jerusalem should lower its profile on the issue, director of the Institute for National Security Studies, Maj.-Gen. (res.) Amos Yadlin, said Monday.

Yadlin, a former Military Intelligence chief, spoke at the unveiling of the INSS's strategic assessment for 2012-2013.

Yadlin stressed that a nuclear-armed Iran is more dangerous than an attack on the Islamic Republic.

    .                      Could not agree more

He called on the government to "return to the international community,"

                 Why should we "return to the international community"  when they are completely  in the dark about the Iranian motives?

and to better coordinate its position with the White House over Iran.

However,  the White House had refused to support the Green revolution in Iran and had done initially everything to stop economic sanctions against Iran. How do you coordinate our position with an administration whose approach to Iran is so different  and  dangerous for us?

An understanding should be reached over the "required steps to stop Iran, and who will take them," Yadlin said. "Israel does not need to object to a diplomatic solution, if it stops the [nuclear] clock."

Stops the nuclear clock? Why should we assume that the people who believe in this   ideology would ever stop a nuclear clock, except to deceive ?

 The key question, Yadlin argued, was how long it will take Iran to reach a nuclear breakout phase from the time it would violate a diplomatic agreement. If a couple of years separate Iran from nuclear breakout, that would be a better solution than a military attack, he said.

Iran is currently four to six months away from nuclear breakout stage, if an order is given to reach that phase now, Yadlin said. He envisaged a diplomatic solution that would allow Iran to possess 1,200 centrifuges.

If Israel did end up striking Iran's nuclear program, a surgical attack that would carefully eliminate nuclear sites could enable Iran to respond in a limited manner, thereby avoiding a regional war, he argued.

Jerusalem should also better coordinate its position with Washington over the Palestinian issue, Yadlin said, adding that it was time for Israel to put forward a new diplomatic initiative.

Yadlin proposed a "fair offer, along the Clinton parameters, or the offer made by the Israeli government in 2008. We estimate that the Palestinians will reject our offer," he said. "If that happens, Israel will be able to shape its own borders," he added, referring to a unilateral step, but one which is based on lessons learned from errors committed in the 2005 Gaza disengagement.

We estimate that the Palestinians will reject our offer".  Wow! So we know it is all a  farce!   Is this all one big game of moves we are supposed to make to show our "good will" while we know it leads nowhere?. Wouldn't  it better to explain why there can never be a  resolution,  since it is contrary to Palestinians' key religious beliefs?

That means maintaining an IDF presence in the Jordan Valley, to cut off weapons transfer points, unlike the abandonment of the Gaza-Egypt border, which allowed Hamas and Islamic Jihad to import large quantities of rockets after Israel left the Strip.

"We are facing an American administration that is maintaining a very good security-intelligence dialogue with us," Yadlin said. "Better than ever before," he added.

 A very good security dialog with the US so that we can we can counter the threats by the Islamist  government  whom  the American administration helped come to power in the first place!

Israel should also seek to forge relationships with new Sunni powers, and work with them to isolate "the big enemy, which is Iran," Yadlin said.

Israel's deterrence is strong, and "the IDF is the strongest military in the Middle East," he added.

Syria will be busy with rebuilding itself in the coming years, he assessed. The fact that Syria - a major component of the Iranian-led regional axis - has been badly damaged has resulted in a benefit for Israel's strategic standing, Yadlin said.

"All of this is conditioned on renewing the diplomatic process with the Palestinians," he stressed.

But a diplomatic process with the Palestinians is just that, a process that does not lead anywhere. It does not lead anywhere because it cannot lead anywhere since it s contrary to the core Muslim tenet of Jihad.  So we need to find a solution which fits both sides.  Does it exist?  Yes.  Muslims are permitted not to wage jihad if the infidel side is perceived as too strong, in which case 10 years of hudna or cease-fire is permitted, after which the conditions for jihad are reevaluated.

The best we can therefore hope for, until these concepts are rendered obsolete by Muslims themselves, is a perpetual state of back-to-back, 10-year-long hudnas. Clearly, amid such a reality, Israel's strength would not be perceived as an obstacle to peace, but as the only viable solution.

So does Yadlin  suggests that we should just engage in an effort which has no solution just to placate the international community?

Yadlin said Israel should seek to contain small incidents along the borders, and "not let small organizations drag us into war."

"If there will be a war-type development in 2013... it will be in our hands," Yadlin said. He called on the government to be "more active" in pursuing these goals.

Turning his attention to the reported air strikes in Syria, Yadlin said that if Syria admitted it had attempted to transfer SA-17 anti-aircraft missiles to Hezbollah, it would be admitting to breaking a pledge made to Russia to refrain from such proliferation.