Psyche, Science, and Society

Investment bank warns of possible Iran attack

January 15th, 2007

Raw Story reports that major investment bank has issued a warning of a possible Israeli-American attack on Iran. It says that the most likely time for such an attack is February-march of this year:

The banking division of ING Group released a memo on Jan. 9 entitled “Attacking Iran: The market impact of a surprise Israeli strike on its nuclear facilities.”

ING is a global financial services company of Dutch origin that includes banking, insurance, and other divisions. The report was authored by Charles Robinson, the Chief Economist for Emerging Europe, Middle East, and Africa. He also authored an update in ING’s daily update Prophet that further underscored the bank’s perception of the risks of an attack.

ING’s Robertson admitted that an attack on Iran was “high impact, if low probability,” but explained some of the reasons why a strike might go forward. The Jan. 9 dispatch, describes Israel as “not prepared to accept the same doctrine of ‘mutually assured destruction’ that kept the peace during the Cold War. Israel is adamant that this is not an option for such a geographically small country….So if Israel is convinced Iran is aiming to develop a nuclear weapon, it must presumably act at some point.”

Sketching out the time line for an attack, Robertson says that “we can be fairly sure that if Israel is going to act, it will be keen to do so while Bush and Cheney are in the White House.”

The January 9th report was updated on January 15th:

In his Jan. 15 update, Robertson points to a political reason that could make the assault more likely - personnel changes in the Bush administration may have sidelined opponents of attacking Iran.

Preisdent Bush recently removed General John Abizaid as commander of US forces in the Middle East and John Negroponte as Director of National Intelligence, both of whom have said attacking Iran is not a priority or the right move at this time. The deployment of Patriot missile batteries, highlighted in President Bush’s recent White House speech on America’s Iraq policy, also pointed to a need to defend against Iranian missiles.

Last year I was a skeptic regarding a US attack on Iran, assuming that the administration wasn’t that crazy. I no longer have confidence in my analysis. The combination of a grandiose but ignorant President seeking a place in history with neocons committed to US total dominance at all costs poses an extremely dangerous combination.

Entry Filed under: Iran, Middle East, Psychology, Uncategorized, War and Peace