Reply
Fri 3 Feb, 2012 04:30 pm
Quote:U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has come to the conclusion there is a growing likelihood Israel could attack Iran sometime this spring in an effort to destroy its suspected nuclear weapons program, according to a senior administration official.
The official declined to be identified due to the sensitive nature of the information.
Panetta's views were first reported by the Washington Post's David Ignatius, who wrote Panetta "believes there is strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June - before Iran enters what Israelis described as a 'zone of immunity' to commence building a nuclear bomb."
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/02/panetta-believes-israel-could-strike-iran-this-spring/
@oralloy,
What are the odds that Las Vegas is placing on this bet? 10 to 1? Better or worse?
Will they be delivering the super bunker buster bomb the US is developing?
@oralloy,
I can actually see that happening. And as much as I loathe to call for yet another armed conflict, I think the US would need to step in and aid them. Iran simply can not get nuclear weapons.
They flex their military muscle every chance they get already without it. It would be a new and scary world if they had real muscle to back their threats up.
@oralloy,
I think the odds would be a lot lower if the US told Israel upfront that if they do so the US will not provide cover at the UN nor any further military assistance.
@oralloy,
This area certainly is the tinderbox.
There are NO decent options for Obama. He loses no matter which way he reacts to this thing. Best to try to deflect Israel from making the move...but even that is a negative action which will cost him.
If the attack comes...all options suck.
If I were an Iranian...especially an Iranian leader...I would be doing everything humanly possible to obtain nuclear weapons as quickly as possible. That truly seems to be the only deterrent to attack.
It sucks...but that is the way things are.
It looks like the US and Israel are playing a "good cop/bad cop" game with Iran what with Israel's apparent champing at the bit for a military strike with statement like “Whoever says ‘later’ may find that later is too late,” and “the dividing line may pass not where the Iranians decide to break out of the nonproliferation treaty and move toward a nuclear device or weapon, but at the place . . . that would make the physical strike impractical,” from its Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, in regard to their fears that Iran may be developing nuclear weapons, and US officials making predictions of an Israeli military offensive along with cautionary statements like, “Israel has indicated they’re considering this, and we have indicated our concerns,” from Panetta himself, and “the Obama administration is concerned that Israel could attack Iranian nuclear facilities this year, having given Washington little or no warning,” from Cliff Kupchan, a former State Department official who had recently had meetings with Israeli officials. The Washington Post further quoted him saying that Israel, “has refused to assure Washington that prior notice would be provided.”
The ploy would serve the Obama Administration's diplomatic approach to the Iranian issue by getting the Iranian regime to acquiesce to more vigorous nuclear inspections by portraying itself as the more level headed party to the issue as opposed to the half-crazed with paranoia, trigger finger Israelis.
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:Will they be delivering the super bunker buster bomb the US is developing?
Good point.
OTOH, given Iran's track record of blowing themselves up while moving munitions, maybe we should make the loan to them.
@InfraBlue,
Infra is just praying that Israel will be destroyed. His hatred of Israel, an oasis in the putrid Middle East, is palpable.
Israel does not seem to had the weapon technology to even attempted to take out deeply bury facilities using non nuclear means from the air.
So that leave us giving them such weapons, they mount a very long range commando raids that would be a one way trip or they dust off a few of their three hundreds or so nukes.
Oh they could attack power plants and other secondaries targets that would slow or stop the Iranians for a time from the air.
All and all it seems that we are the only ones with the technology and the muscle to completely end the Iranians nuke program without going nuke ourself to do so.
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:Will they be delivering the super bunker buster bomb the US is developing?
Not the new 30,000-pound ones. Those require a heavy bomber just to carry them.
@engineer,
engineer wrote:I think the odds would be a lot lower if the US told Israel upfront that if they do so the US will not provide cover at the UN nor any further military assistance.
We'd never do such a horrible thing.
And in any case, if Israel felt they had to survive on their own without friends, the effect would likely be the opposite of what you propose, with their military actions against potential threats becoming even more vigorous.
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:This area certainly is the tinderbox.
There are NO decent options for Obama. He loses no matter which way he reacts to this thing. Best to try to deflect Israel from making the move...but even that is a negative action which will cost him.
If the attack comes...all options suck.
If I were an Iranian...especially an Iranian leader...I would be doing everything humanly possible to obtain nuclear weapons as quickly as possible. That truly seems to be the only deterrent to attack.
It sucks...but that is the way things are.
There is another deterrent against attack: not being a rogue nation in the first place.
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:Israel does not seem to had the weapon technology to even attempted to take out deeply bury facilities using non nuclear means from the air.
So that leave us giving them such weapons, they mount a very long range commando raids that would be a one way trip or they dust off a few of their three hundreds or so nukes.
Oh they could attack power plants and other secondaries targets that would slow or stop the Iranians for a time from the air.
All and all it seems that we are the only ones with the technology and the muscle to completely end the Iranians nuke program without going nuke ourself to do so.
Both Bush and Obama have given Israel a number of 5000-pound bunker busters of the sort that were developed for the 1991 Iraq war.
Since Iran's bunkers are of the cut-n-cover variety, that should be sufficient.
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
engineer wrote:I think the odds would be a lot lower if the US told Israel upfront that if they do so the US will not provide cover at the UN nor any further military assistance.
We'd never do such a horrible thing.
And in any case, if Israel felt they had to survive on their own without friends, the effect would likely be the opposite of what you propose, with their military actions against potential threats becoming even more vigorous.
I think if Israel understood that there is a line beyond which they will lose our support they might take more constructive actions to achieve their goals. Israel is sending operatives into Iran with US passports, they have flown jets showing US IFF signals and generally feel that they can do anything no matter how outrageous and the US will still support them. We do they no favors by allowing them to behave badly with impunity. If Israel was faced with the choice of surviving on their own without friends or restraining themselves and surviving with friends, I think they would do the latter.
@engineer,
engineer wrote:oralloy wrote:engineer wrote:I think the odds would be a lot lower if the US told Israel upfront that if they do so the US will not provide cover at the UN nor any further military assistance.
We'd never do such a horrible thing.
And in any case, if Israel felt they had to survive on their own without friends, the effect would likely be the opposite of what you propose, with their military actions against potential threats becoming even more vigorous.
I think if Israel understood that there is a line beyond which they will lose our support they might take more constructive actions to achieve their goals. Israel is sending operatives into Iran with US passports, they have flown jets showing US IFF signals and generally feel that they can do anything no matter how outrageous and the US will still support them. We do they no favors by allowing them to behave badly with impunity. If Israel was faced with the choice of surviving on their own without friends or restraining themselves and surviving with friends, I think they would do the latter.
I do not agree that Israel's behavior is bad.
Also, they are only doing what they need to do in order to survive. They are not going to choose to undermine their own survival no matter what pressures are put on them.
@engineer,
Quote:they have flown jets showing US IFF signals and generally feel that they can do anything no matter how outrageous and the US will still support them. We do they no favors by allowing them to behave badly with impunity.
Given their history where they had even had attacked a US naval spy ship flying a US flag killing US sailors and gotten alway with it good luck on limiting their actions because of fear of what the US might do afterward to them.
They had proven time after time that they will do whatever they think they need to do and worry about the aftermath down the road.
If we remember Gibralter and Corrigador, we might notice we do not necessarily need to destroy everything below ground. We need only collapse a mountain in front of the entrances. This is a very low manpower siege.
@roger,
Hell they need power of a fair size city so bombing the power plants that feed them that power would shut them down for a long long time.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace