Israel and friends....foes

[SubGod22]

Israel Reportedly Considers Pre-Emptive Attack on Iran

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is reportedly trying to rally support for an attack on Iran, according to government sources.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman are said to be among those backing a pre-emptive strike to neutralize Iran's nuclear ambitions, Sky News reports.

A "narrow majority" of ministers currently oppose the move, which could lead to retaliation.

In response to reports of an effort to gain cabin approval on Netanyahu's proposal, Lieberman said: "Iran poses the most dangerous threat to world order."

Lieberman added that Israel's military options should not be a matter for public discussion.

In response to Netanyahu's proposal, Iran's military chief warned that an Israeli attack on the Islamic nation's nuclear development sites "will inflict heavy damages," according to the Iranian ISNA news agency.

"The U.S. officials know that the Zionist regime's military attack against Iran will inflict heavy damages to the U.S. seriously, as well as the Zionist regime," said Hassan Firouzabadi, Iran's chairman of the joint chiefs of staff of Iran's armed forces.

[SB Shock]

Israel does not have the military infrastructure to make an "effective" conventional attack on Iran alone. Their only option is to use nuclear weapons and destroy Iran - which is unthinkable. Israeli people are split almost 50-50 whether they agree with the first strike principal, so it does not look like they have political will. I think this latest chest thumping is either a smoke screen to hide some other operation or trying to get the U.S. and allies to do it themselves.

[Kung Wu]

Israel does not have the military infrastructure to make an "effective" conventional attack on Iran alone. Their only option is to use nuclear weapons and destroy Iran - which is unthinkable.

Is this your opinion or are you reading this somewhere?

[SubGod22]

I believe the Israelis have the capability of attacking and doing significant damage to Irans nuclear and military structures. They also have a great capability of defending themselves. They may not have the physical numbers of some countries, but they're every bit as advanced and prepared as the US Military. The real question is, if the do strike Iran, will the US and other allies come to their aid and help? Either before or after such attack.

The Israelis aren't stupid. But if they feel a real threat from Iran, I don't think they should sit back and wait for it. Especially with all the talk of removing Israel from the map that's come out of Iran. With their current nuclear ambitions and rockets capable of delivery, Israel should be concerned. They won't make any rash decisions, but they have to keep all options on the table.

[60Shock]

There is absolutely no question that Israel (or us) can take out Iran's nuclear facilities whenever we want to. It is the aftermat that Israel, in particular, has to be deeply concerned about. Regardless of which one of us eventually might do it, Israel is more-than-likely the one who is going to have to suffer the majority of the consequences.

Iran's military is large, well equipped, and would be a significant foe for Israel to take on without our support, which is certainly questionable under Obama's leadership.

The rest of the Arab countries with the exception of Syria are unlikely to get involved from a military standpoint. But, if Iran counter attacks Israel, look for Syria to support and join their ally as well. I base this on the assumption that Syria, with all their present domestic problems would see this as an opportunity to at least temporary quell their internal problems by transferring the hate to their immortal enemy, the Israelis, and gain their people's support in this fiasco. This is a time honored strategy. Just look back in history if you have any doubts.

And from there anythng can happen. Keep in mind, Iran, alone, would be a formidable foe for Israel.

[Maggie]

According to articles I read, probably 8, 9 or more months ago, Israel probably doesn’t have the conventional military capability to completely take out Iran’s nuclear program. Part of it has to do with the weapons systems they possess, the various locations in Iran, and Iran’s air defense system. So I think SB is basically correct. 60Shock is right about the fallout from an attack.

Now Israel could do some serious damage; but it would also be at a very high cost – not just in military lives lost but the possibility of starting wider war, retaliation from Iran and its proxies, and the usual diplomatic problems Israel would be confronted with (and our current government will not back Israel – at least not initially, the only way the Obama Administration will back Israel is if it feels its inaction or open hostility – I foresee the latter as the first reaction – would further damage Obama’s standing among Jews in the country). It is ideology first, domestic politics a close second with this Administration when it comes to foreign policy decisions.

That said, who really knows what the Israelis are capable of – they should never be underestimated and they have had three years to figure out that they would likely stand alone.

[SB Shock]

Is this your opinion or are you reading this somewhere?

That is my opinion based on my understanding of:

a. Israeli airforce order of battle (lack of bunker busting bombs, heavy bombers, refuelling, basing, etc).
b. Latest opininion polls that came out this week in Israel.
c. Israeli (lack of) performance in the Lebanan a few years ago in taking out hardened underground bunkers

In previous attack on nuclear facilities there was no public discussion (i.e. Iraqi Osirak reactor, and Syrian nuclear plant). Why start here if you really were planning something. You don't violate OPSEC.

There are also reports that the military is providing push-back on supposed attack. Don't have a link, but I'm sure you can google it and find something on it.

[60Shock]

All very good points. None of us have crystal balls (at least I hope not) and this is a very volatile situation.

If the US, GB, Germany and France had any balls, Israel would not be faced with this predicament. But the UN and the willy washy Western powers have ***** footed around the Iranian nuclear issue far too long as it is. So what do we all do, we choose to stand by and let the smallest and most vulnerable county in the area do our dirty work. Sic Mikey on them and let him take the fall out.

I personally think that Israel will attack. And soon. They cannot afford not to do so. They will strike and will most certainly accomplish that which they set out to do. They are a most formidable force. If Israel did not have the weapons necessary to take out the facilities a year ago, you can be assured they know this and will not attack without presently having them. And we have had them for some time. So if they were not capable (doubtful) of producing them themselves, from where do you think they might have already obtained them?

Further, it is highly unlikely after Iran's failed attempt to take out the Saudi Ambassador, that any other country other than Syria would support them. They are now the elephant in the ME and there are several countries in that region who don't trust them anymore than we, the Israelis, and the Saudis do.

And lastly, Iran is not Syria. I lived and worked as an advisor to the Iranian military in Iran for three years in the mid 1970's. They at this stage in their development as the leading ME country, cannot stand by like Syria did when Israel took out their sites. They have to save face. Saving face is tantamount to their very existance. That's one thing after all these years, that Americans diplomats still do not get although we outlined it to them 40 years ago and they still ignore it. Like bowing to the Saudi King.

If you show weakness in the ME in any type of situation, you are looked upon as weak, cowardly, and untrustworthy.

[SubGod22]

Iran calls Israel's existence an 'insult', as prominent rabbi warns it's more than rhetoric

"The existence of the Zionist regime is an insult to all humanity," Ahmadinejad said. He was addressing worshippers at Tehran University after nationwide pro-Palestinian rallies, an annual event marking Quds (Jerusalem) Day on the last Friday of the holy month of Ramadan.

The comments are "reminiscent" of a letter written about the Jews and signed by Adolf Hitler in 1919, Rabbi Marvin Hier, Founder and Dean of the Simon Wisenthal Center, says.

Rabbi Hier compares Ahmadinejad's comments to the notion found in Hitler’s letter referencing the "removal of Jews all together." "Twenty-two years later he implemented everything, and the same is true about Ahmadinejad," Rabbi Hier said.

"We assume it's only rhetoric, but we once paid a very high price for assuming Hitler was talking rhetoric," he said.

I've heard some talk here and there about Iran and Israel and if someone will attack Iran and when that may happen, but this is the most blatant remark I've seen come out of Iran in awhile and thought I'd share.

[60Shock]

This is a very dangerous game that Iran is playing. Obviously it falls into the area of sabre rattling, but it goes far beyond that.

The question that bares asking is why? Why at a time when you are 'supposedly' developing the capability of producing nuclear weapons are you hurtling insults at your enemies which may result in them attacking and destroying your ability to do so? With the aftermath of setting your program back pershaps up to a decade.

My impression of Ahmadinejad, when he first appeared on the scene, was here is a another wild, fanatical nut case. But, after listening to him speak over the years, I have come to the conclusion that what he does and says has a much deeper meaning and a purpose behind it. His rhetoric is mainly certainly political and religious, but you can bet that, today, it is totally dictated and approved by the 'holy' Iranian rulers.

So other than simply keeping the pot stirred, are there other ulterior motive behind these actions.

Any thoughts?

[SubGod22]

This is a very dangerous game that Iran is playing. Obviously it falls into the area of sabre rattling, but it goes far beyond that.

The question that bares asking is why? Why at a time when you are 'supposedly' developing the capability of producing nuclear weapons are you hurtling insults at your enemies which may result in them attacking and destroying your ability to do so? With the aftermath of setting your program back pershaps up to a decade.

My impression of Ahmadinejad, when he first appeared on the scene, was here is a another wild, fanatical nut case. But, after listening to him speak over the years, I have come to the conclusion that what he does and says has a much deeper meaning and a purpose behind it. His rhetoric is mainly certainly political and religious, but you can bet that, today, it is totally dictated and approved by the 'holy' Iranian rulers.

So other than simply keeping the pot stirred, are there other ulterior motive behind these actions.

Any thoughts?

I'm not sure what it accomplishes other than being able to say "the enemy is scared to do anything so watch this." They keep saying absurd things and pushing buttons and nobody does anything. I'm guessing that Israel is close as I've heard they have plans. But will they do it without American approval/help? The US isn't going to do anything. Especially under this administration. We're in no position to go in and take care of business and I'm not sure we're willing to launch an air campaign even if it means nobody touches the ground in Iran.

IF the Israelis do attack, I hope that we at least provide naval support from the Gulf if needed.

But at some point, the Israelis have to think that they're going to be attacked and will probably do something about it. I'm honestly surprised that they've held off this long.

[60Shock]

I present the following merely as another viewpoint.

This is from a close American friend of mine who is a former member of the US Army wherein he served as an Iranian translator. Back in the late 1960's he attended the University of Shiraz. Iran, where he obtained his Masters Degree in Iranian Studies. I met him while I was stationed there from 1973-1975, when the Shah was still in power. We have remained friends throughout the years even though I do not always agree with some of his observations as he sometimes leans (what I consider), much more forgiving of the Iranian leadership than I am. But I do think he may very well be on track concerning whether or not Iran will actually develop nuclear weapons.

While I was in Iran, I worked very closely with Iranian Army and Air Force counterparts. I came rather quickly to the opinion, as well as many other fellow Americans that they did not simply often reason like Westerners do when presented with a situation. By that I mean, they do not decipher what is being said or planned in the same (somewhat) logical manner that we do. Everything gets twisted around various factors such as: trust being a major issue - they don't trust anyone who is not family; religion naturally often enters into the equation; plus, unless they are the ultimate leader or boss, they will not make any decisions or recommendations. Everything gets kicked upstairs. And even then, any decision will take from 3-6 months before it is finally made. Then, at that point, the leader will present it as his original idea and then ask you for your opinion on your own recommendation. This can range from simply authorizing a purchase for office supplies for say $25 to a purchase in excess of a couple of million dollars. My understanding is that this is basically the same situation today. During my tour, twice my main Iranian counterparts simply disappeared one day and never reappeared again. And no information for their absence was ever provided. First time I suspected the officer may have been taking bribes and the second one’s removal may have been because he was becoming too Americanized.

My friend’s comment:

“I have another theory (and that's all it is) that Iran will not, in fact, develop a nuclear weapon. Our strategists seem to operate on the assumption that if an opponent has a capability then they will be driven to exercise it. Iranians often in my experience don't think as much like that. In their leadership I suspect that building a weapon would generate enormous internal command and control issues. Even under the Shah their organizations were more about divisively overlapping lines of authority and responsibility designed to make everyone compete and report on everyone else. Their private companies tended in that direction as well. But this was mitigated by the fact that most, if not all, businesses were relatively small family run operations. One could argue that it was a self-limiting feature of their society; they had and I believe have, relative to the West, less ability to create large, efficient organizations with numbers of people whose personal objectives conformed to the organization's. Imagine this environment trying to create and maintain a command and control structure capable of keeping a WMD secure. And by secure I mean unlikely to be used against the leadership itself.
The worry is, in my opinion likely to be at the top of the leadership's nightmare list. At the same time it is typically Iranian to announce something and then act as though the announcement is either in process or already completed. They do that all the time and, particularly in the West it has historically bought them a fair amount of leverage.”

[SB Shock]

I'm still not seeing the mechanism that would allow Israel to effectively strike Iran without significant help (i.e. basing) by some countrie(s). But according to this blog I follow, he believe the adminstration efforts to try and stop Israel from attacking is actually make it more probable

The United States has indirectly informed Iran, via two European nations, that it would not back an Israeli strike against the country's nuclear facilities, as long as Tehran refrains from attacking American interests in the Persian Gulf, Yedioth Ahronoth reported Monday. According to the report, Washington used covert back-channels in Europe to clarify that the US does not intend to back Israel in a strike that may spark a regional conflict.

The author said

To anyone outside of Foggy Bottom, this "proposal" is the height of fecklessness--a veritable fool's errand that will almost guarantee the opposite results.


Consider the position of Israel. Based on this "offer," the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will (rightly) conclude it has been sold down the river again, leaving it with no option but striking Iran before that nation's nuclear program reaches the point of no return. The U.S. plan comes on the heels of an announced down-sizing in a planned exercise between American and Israeli forces, scheduled for early this fall. Based on these developments, Israel views itself as "alone" in facing the Iranian menace, adding more urgency to reported attack preparations.

From the Iranian perspective, the proposal is an open invitation for Tehran (and its surrogates) to hit back in retaliation for an Israeli strike, using all the resources at their disposal. In return, the U.S. only asks the Iran, Syria, Hizballah and Hamas simply refrain from hitting our interests in the region.

Nasrallah’s has come out and said “If Israel targets Iran, America bears responsibility,” he told the Beirut-based Al Mayadeen TV Monday night.
“A decision has been taken in Tehran to respond and the response will be very great,” he said, citing “Iranian officials.”

full blog can be read at:

http://formerspook.blogspot.com/

[SubGod22]

Who's the last president to hate the Jewish people so much?

[pinstripers]

Probably hafta go back a hundred years.