Israel close to hitting Iran.

srael is seriously considering taking unilateral military action to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, according to a report by top US political figures and experts released Wednesday.

The report also says Israel's time frame for action is growing shorter, not only because of Iranian advances, but because Teheran might soon acquire upgraded air defenses and disperse its nuclear program to additional locations.

The report, "Preventing a Cascade of Instability," was put out by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP). It also argues that international sanctions against Iran need to be intensified urgently for the engagement the Obama administration is planning with Teheran to be effective.

Click to expand...

'Israel seriously considering Iran military op' | Iran news | Jerusalem Post

June 15th, no later then, that's where I'd put my money on Israel hitting the **** out of Iran. They know they have no ally in the WH, and the world is content to do nothing more then talk.

It should be interesting how this plays out.

MrVicchio said:

'Israel seriously considering Iran military op' | Iran news | Jerusalem Post

June 15th, no later then, that's where I'd put my money on Israel hitting the **** out of Iran. They know they have no ally in the WH, and the world is content to do nothing more then talk.

It should be interesting how this plays out.

Click to expand...

Indeed.

I suspect this will start quite a war in the middle east. Honestly, I suspect the Saudis will condemn the attack in public, and celebrate it in secret.

The Saudis loathe and detest the Mullahs and Ayetoiletbowl with a passion.

This will be interesting. I am concentrating on Israel for my Political Science degree here at the University, so this is right up my ally.

Vader said:

Honestly, I suspect the Saudis will condemn the attack in public, and celebrate it in secret.

Click to expand...

I think this will describe the Obama Administration as well.

Arch Enemy said:

This will be interesting. I am concentrating on Israel for my Political Science degree here at the University, so this is right up my ally.

I think this will describe the Obama Administration as well.

Click to expand...

Yes, I suspect you are quite correct sir.

:mrgreen:

Reality bites.

Exactly how are the Israeli's going to effect such an attack effectively on Iran? SLBM's? Are they going to get overflight permission from Iraq and or Jordan? Do they have the inflight refueling capability to bring payloads either large enough or in large enough numbers to effectively eliminate the Iranian nuclear arsenal? HAVE we identified all the nuclear facilities? Is this idea even militarily feasible?

Is this idea politiclly feasible? I am sure the Obama administration is about to green light Israeli strikes on Iran at the same time we are attempting reproachment with and inviting Iran to attend regional summits of Aghanistan?

And the blow back of such raids? When we have successfully radicalized Iran and they start pouring equipment and money through the silk road smuggling routes into newly radicalized JAM, Taliban, Hizboallah, Hamas, and pretty much anyone else who wants to take a pot shot at Israe lor the USA, this would be good? I am sure we want a hugely de-stablizing influence to come pouring into Iraq and Afghanistan as we are at some very delicate cross roads in both regions.

Yep, an attack is just around the corner, and appears to be a wonderful idea in both conception and execution.

Perhaps we are getting ourselves just a little cavalier with wars we'd like to start but want someone else to bear the consequences for? :shock:

Well, gree0232, first of all you have to remember who you're debating. What I mean by that is, does it appear to you that neocons/interventionists have a history of thinking out their actions before hand? Despite all the warnings from ME experts, we have to remember that the general stance was 'we'll be greeted as liberators, the oil will pay for it, and we'll be home before the leaves fall..." A trillion dollars and several failed strategies later we still have a mess.

Also, since when has Israel cared about it's PR, i.e. do you really think they would feel the need to get permission to use Iraqi/Jordanian airspace? They know this would be denied (since, after all, these governments are not made up exclusively of crazy folk who understand that regional war is desirable).

Perhaps we are getting ourselves just a little cavalier with wars we'd like to start but want someone else to bear the consequences for?

Click to expand...

Are you talking about Israel? I don't see how they, being a hated little country without friends who aren't half a world away, would bear any consequence from attacking Iran.

America, on the other hand, with an economy that runs on oil as well as a very real presence in both of Iran's neighbors, would most certainly feel the effect.

There is no conclusive evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. If Israel strikes, it will be doing so under false pretenses. That's right, let's bomb the "****" out of Iran so that its security infrastructure can collapse and the nuclear material can then actually fall into the wrong hands.

Well, here is an interesting curve ball.

To get at sites in Iran, Israeli jets would have to fly over Iraq. As the Iraqi's obviously do not want this to happen, what sort of position would that place our Air Force in?

Would we then be in a position to either shoot down Israeli fighters or abet the attack on a soverign nation at the expense of another nation?

Perhaps we could dash our jingoims with some realty?

I do not favor a preemptive Israeli strike against Iran.

It would be extremely complex and taxing militarily, and way too many things could go wrong. It would be almost impossible to accomplish such a strike without the acquiescence and assistence of the United States. It has been reported that Mrs. Clinton and Israel discussed such an event during her recent visit. It seems to be a lose-lose situation. Either a horrific war or unbridled nuclear proliferation will almost certainly occur in the Middle East.

If it is war, the West will be sucked into it almost immediately. The oil lanes must be kept open at all costs. The shock waves of a Middle East in flames would shatter the extremely fragile global economic condition. Arab governments in the ME would be in a very difficult position as doing nothing could be every bit as dangerous as doing something. Doing nothing would infuriate both Iran and the various populations within the Muslim crescent. Doing something could force Israel to go nuclear to survive.

Nuclear proliferation in the Middle East - a volatile region in the best of times - is also unthinkable. Most Sunni nations would demand and support a Saudi/Egypt nuclear umbrella. Iran is placing pressures on the Gulf States to break away from the Kingdom. Southern Iraq is for all practical purposes another province of Iran. Pakistan is already unstable. Yemen is on the verge of becoming another Afghanistan. Lebanon is fracturing. Need I go on? Nuclear proliferation would be a nightmare in the volatile ME environment.

Tashah said:

I do not favor a preemptive Israeli strike against Iran.

It would be extremely complex and taxing militarily, and way too many things could go wrong. It would be almost impossible to accomplish such a strike without the acquiescence and assistence of the United States. It has been reported that Mrs. Clinton and Israel discussed such an event during her recent visit. It seems to be a lose-lose situation. Either a horrific war or unbridled nuclear proliferation will almost certainly occur in the Middle East.

If it is war, the West will be sucked into it almost immediately. The oil lanes must be kept open at all costs. The shock waves of a Middle East in flames would shatter the extremely fragile global economic condition. Arab governments in the ME would be in a very difficult position as doing nothing could be every bit as dangerous as doing something. Doing nothing would infuriate both Iran and the various populations within the Muslim crescent. Doing something could force Israel to go nuclear to survive.

Nuclear proliferation in the Middle East - a volatile region in the best of times - is also unthinkable. Most Sunni nations would demand and support a Saudi/Egypt nuclear umbrella. Iran is placing pressures on the Gulf States to break away from the Kingdom. Southern Iraq is for all practical purposes another province of Iran. Pakistan is already unstable. Yemen is on the verge of becoming another Afghanistan. Lebanon is fracturing. Need I go on? Nuclear proliferation would be a nightmare in the volatile ME environment.

Click to expand...

Lets put this in perspective.

1) Why does Iran want nuclear missiles? Could it be the exact same reason that North Korea wants and now has them? Iran has no way of competing with the West and its current conventional military might. What has this done to our enemies? It pushes them to the extremes of the spectrum. Hamas rockets are one extreme, and the other is nations seeking a nuclear deterrent to temper the fires of those currently holding access to military power and domination that is almost unhearlded in previous human history.

2) A nuclear armed Iran would change some diplomatic things in a very beneficial way. Instead of demonizing a nation we refuse to talk with (hopefully changing) and then attempting to bully it by threatening it with invasion and economic devestation, it gives hawks used to unbridled military power pause, "Do what we want or we will .... hold on a minute here, they have nucs!"

3) A nuclear armed Iran does not necessitate the rapid proliferation of nuclear weapons. If we are legitimately concerned about this, there are two nations higher up that problem's list.

a. North Korea, who is isolated both internationally and ensconed by a logic driven only by its leaders current whims. They have already been involved in the process to arm Pakistan with nuclear weapons, and, as their current economic outlook isn't exactly grand, they are far more likley to be involved with nuclear proliferation than perhaps any other regime.

b. Pakistan, who is less stable, and arguably far more intimately involved with terrorist groups than Iran (whether officially or not is beside the point). This country has itself helped devloped and exploited the very loop holes in proliferation and yet I do not see any calls to bomb them back into th stone age or teen age poli-sci majors clamoring at their chance to involve themselves in war planning to remove this grave threat.

Maybe if we weren't following a course that was needlessly confrontational and designed and built upon naked threats we wouldn't have to justify that policy with doomsday predictions?

What is clear is that demonizing, threatening, and refusing to talk to Iran has not slowed it even slightly in its desire for a nuclear weapon. Perhaps we can try a different approach before we scry ourselves visions of impending doom?

Iran is rational, and equally aware of the costs and benefits of possesing nuclear weapons, just as they are aware of the costs and benfits of not having them. The question is how do we change the calculus of that cost benefit analysis?

What is clear is that Iran has some pretty legitimate security concerns that are driving them to go nuclear, and threatening them with a pre-emptive first nuclear strike (which neither Israel nor the USA is about to do) isn't helping.

We don't have to stack the deck toward confrontation, and a focus on solutions would be a nice and very welcome change.

Ergo, if Iran is about to Nuclear, what the devil are we going to do about it as pretty much everyone, including those threatening it, seem to think that military strikes would be a bad idea?

Obama might not green light an attack, but I doubt he has the balls to order our military to hit the Israeli's.

The big question a friend here asked me was "What if Iran get's the bomb? I mean comes out and says 'We have nuclear weapons now' what happens then?"

I believe if Iran did that... you'd see a first strike, nuclear by Israel. They are DEADLY serious about denying nukes to Iran. Better a conventional strike now, then be forced to use nukes later. And yes, I believe Israel would.

BTW, the whole "neo-con/pro-interventionist" crap... drop it. Or do you support Iranian nuclear weapons. Cause diplomacy... that's interventionist without weapons. You're a hypocrit.

Would you make the same bet about a GEN Petreaus worried about US soldiers who would bear the brunt of the Iranian response and the shredding of his policy initiatives in both Iraq and Afghanistan?

gree0232 said:

Would you make the same bet about a GEN Petreaus worried about US soldiers who would bear the brunt of the Iranian response and the shredding of his policy initiatives in both Iraq and Afghanistan?

Click to expand...

What do you think would happen to the ME if Tel Aviv suddenly became a glass parking lot?

MrVicchio said:

What do you think would happen to the ME if Tel Aviv suddenly became a glass parking lot?

Click to expand...

Doing what they've been doing for the past thousand years... punching each other in the figurative penis region.

MrVicchio said:

Obama might not green light an attack, but I doubt he has the balls to order our military to hit the Israeli's.

The big question a friend here asked me was "What if Iran get's the bomb? I mean comes out and says 'We have nuclear weapons now' what happens then?"

I believe if Iran did that... you'd see a first strike, nuclear by Israel. They are DEADLY serious about denying nukes to Iran. Better a conventional strike now, then be forced to use nukes later. And yes, I believe Israel would.

BTW, the whole "neo-con/pro-interventionist" crap... drop it. Or do you support Iranian nuclear weapons. Cause diplomacy... that's interventionist without weapons. You're a hypocrit.

Click to expand...

Actually building a bomb with nuclear capabilities is next to impossible to hide.

High resolution satellite imaging can show the power level of any nuclear reactor. With that you can easily determine if the power level is over a certain MWt in which nuclear production is possible.

Arch Enemy said:

Doing what they've been doing for the past thousand years... punching each other in the figurative penis region.

Click to expand...

It goes beyond punching when you involve nuclear weapons...

MrVicchio said:

It goes beyond punching when you involve nuclear weapons...

Click to expand...

oh the the muslims, as soon as they acquire nuclear weapons, are just going to lob them at each other?

MrVicchio said:

What do you think would happen to the ME if Tel Aviv suddenly became a glass parking lot?

Click to expand...

Oh I love this!

So, in order to prevent Iran, who has not invaded a country in 200 years (and so what about our own threats and Israels threats to invade them), from getting nuclear missile and threatening us with a nuclear strike we will ....

Bomb them and threaten them with the very thing we don't want them to threaten us with? A nuclear first strike has been put on the table as a legitimate policy for the first time ever by any Nation. And, somehow, we are more worried about an Iranian nuclear arsenal tat doesn't even exist yet?

And what pray tell would happen is Israel suddenly turned Tehran into a glass parking lot?

Yeah! I just love doomsday ideology that justifies our own use of doomsday solutions! Yeah!

No invasion will happen of Iran, unless it is an illegal one conducted by Israel. To date there has been no evidence collected by the IAEA to suggest a weapon is being made. All nuclear material is currently accounted for.

It is the neo-conservative interventionist mentality that wants an invasion of Iran to happen regardless of evidence which proves such an attack is unwarranted.

Orius said:

There is no conclusive evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. If Israel strikes, it will be doing so under false pretenses. That's right, let's bomb the "****" out of Iran so that its security infrastructure can collapse and the nuclear material can then actually fall into the wrong hands.

Click to expand...

As opposed to doing nothing and waiting until there is a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv.

ludahai said:

As opposed to doing nothing and waiting until there is a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv.

Click to expand...

The Bush Administration already duped the people of the U.S. into believing Iraq was a pre-emptive war, that a threat was imminent. In fact, it was a preventative war, in that there was some vague threat that might happen sometime down the road and thats why an invasion should happen now.

People aren't going to fall for it a second time. A war with Iran right now would be preventative, and nothing more. There is no evidence that there is an imminent threat at this time, and I trust the IAEA to keep an eye on the situation. The IAEA was discarded in 2003 even though its findings were more truthful than those of the CIA. I believe them now over anything the U.S. or Israel has to say on the matter.

gree0232 said:

Oh I love this!

So, in order to prevent Iran, who has not invaded a country in 200 years (and so what about our own threats and Israels threats to invade them), from getting nuclear missile and threatening us with a nuclear strike we will ....

Click to expand...

Conveniently ignoring the fact that for most of the past 200 years they were not in a position to invade anyone, but prior to that, they DID invade others - and often.

Bomb them and threaten them with the very thing we don't want them to threaten us with? A nuclear first strike has been put on the table as a legitimate policy for the first time ever by any Nation. And, somehow, we are more worried about an Iranian nuclear arsenal tat doesn't even exist yet?

Click to expand...

So, you would rather wait for the smoking gun, rather the smoking mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv? Iran gaining a nuclear weapon is simply NOT an option. If they want the international community to have any confidence whatsoever in their claims, they have to open their program to the international community in a far more transparent manner than they have thus far.

And what pray tell would happen is Israel suddenly turned Tehran into a glass parking lot?

Click to expand...

Something tells me that Israel would NOT target Tehran unless the nuclear program was in fact centered there. However, I have no doubt Iran and their terrorist buddies would have no qualms about exploding a nuclear device in an Israeli population center.

Yeah! I just love doomsday ideology that justifies our own use of doomsday solutions! Yeah!

Click to expand...

Look at who we are dealing with.

ludahai said:

As opposed to doing nothing and waiting until there is a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv.

Click to expand...

So what is your solution?

Are you advocating a military solution that would put US and Isareli foreign policy on a direct confrontation course and quite literally set up a dangerous but very real confrontation between the IAF seeking out Iranian targets and the USAF that has been charged with the defense of the air space leading into Iran? Is this a good idea?

Or, should we give Iran security gurantees to take away their motivation for a nuclear device? Should we cooperate with Iran, as we have other nations, for the peaceful use of nuclear power that would also, not coinicidentally, allow us to monitor the program and prevent it from going nuclear?

Should we AT LEAST attempt to talk with Iran as equals and see if we can find a solution prior to bombing them?

Or should we just brand all diagreement as terrorism and bomb it?

ludahai said:

As opposed to doing nothing and waiting until there is a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv.

Click to expand...

Now that we have Obama in Office, we will have Peace in our time.

I have a serious question for those of you thinking a strike by Israel would be a bad thing.

Do you really believe Iran is enriching Uranium purely for power generation?