Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cheney voices concern that Israel may attack Iran
The Jerusalem Post ^ | 20 January 2005 | JPOST.COM STAFF

Posted on 01/20/2005 1:01:34 PM PST by anotherview

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-166 next last
To: dervish

I just heard Cheney's words on Imus:

Israel "might do it without being asked."

Note: He had a big smile on. Deniability in place.


101 posted on 01/20/2005 3:29:27 PM PST by dervish (Europe can go to Islam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: All

Must be the current BOLO for the Chinese Terrorists affecting my brain, but how might China react to action in Iran? Read a Freep on how China is building a 'string of pearls' to ensure the continued flow of ME oil to their manufacturing base. So, would China see action as a threat to themselves? Seems I was reading that China and Iran are pretty tight.

China would be a war of another sort - might be winable, but it would take a while.


102 posted on 01/20/2005 3:32:57 PM PST by Middle-O-Road ((In favor of blowing all terrorists to China, via other hotter places where they'll linger a while.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Thud
You maybe right, we can expect anything in the next few weeks.
Connect the dots here, we get a report from the media ( leaked in fro ) last week that the US has Special OPS Forces in IRAN now ( even though the US denies it ) and now ? We can READ BETWEEN THE LINES in President Bush's Inaugural speech, and Vice President Cheneys comments today.
103 posted on 01/20/2005 3:36:57 PM PST by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM 53 : 1 The ( FOOL ) hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: infidel44

Thanks for the information .


104 posted on 01/20/2005 3:37:09 PM PST by Marano NYC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: anotherview

Attacking Iran is the right thing to do, though I have trepidations. Russia backs Iran, and we back Israel.

A bit of entangling alliances. Getting oil out of the region is going to take a couple of carrier battle groups I would think.


105 posted on 01/20/2005 3:44:42 PM PST by RinaseaofDs (The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HardStarboard

Not just the purposeful leak, but the US saying that the story was "wildly inaccurate", but not that it was untrue. I'm not a master of diplo-speak, but this sounds to me like what is known in the biz as "sabre-rattling."


106 posted on 01/20/2005 3:48:30 PM PST by johnb838 (Oldthinkers unbellyfeel Amsoc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: steveegg
Yes, basically, it is the 707, but, under the military classification it is the KC/C - 135 Tanker.
The 707 ( originally the DASH 80 is the first 707 , you can see the prototype at the AIR and SPACE museum near DULLES airport ) and the KC/C - 135 Tanker are the same plane.
107 posted on 01/20/2005 3:49:43 PM PST by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM 53 : 1 The ( FOOL ) hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: anotherview

Wow...Cheney actually put this plan into words. I believe most of us that have been following the developments in Iran were aware this was the preferred strategy. Allow Israel to take out the nuclear facilities, we'd "act" distressed, behind the scenes play cleanup and security.

If Cheney is being so bold as to verbally acknowledge this avenue, I wonder what they have recently learned.


108 posted on 01/20/2005 4:04:25 PM PST by Soul Seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anotherview

Interesting that this was on Imus. Sort of an informal chuckly show that goes under the radar in the US, and Cheney is fairly dull to the domestic audience. But I'm sure foreign analysts would be very interested in any available MSNBC feeds of Cheney in person.


109 posted on 01/20/2005 4:06:27 PM PST by Monti Cello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traumer

Sure thing. He waited, what was it two... three days after the election before he flattened Fallujah?


110 posted on 01/20/2005 4:09:15 PM PST by johnb838 (Oldthinkers unbellyfeel Amsoc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: anotherview
the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards

Shouldn't be shedding tears over the crying diplomats. In '81 Israel took care of business bombing Iraq's nuclear reactor. Boohoo cried the world: UN resolution passed condemning Israel (supported by the U.S. and the subsequent suspension of F-16 deliveries). Retrospectively it was one helluva smart move. If we always wrung our hands over what the diplomats might say we'd do exactly nothing and the world would be a more dangerous place.

111 posted on 01/20/2005 4:10:12 PM PST by Lent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anotherview

israel did a good job on saddam's reactor.


112 posted on 01/20/2005 4:10:25 PM PST by ken21 (4 as much time as u spend on the internet, u cd have several college degrees--daisy noonan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rang1995

Perhaps as it will turn out, in Iraq we were only playing Little Casino Pre-emption, and now we're going to play Big Casino Pre-emption or, Pre-emption II: The Nucular Option.


113 posted on 01/20/2005 4:20:22 PM PST by johnb838 (Oldthinkers unbellyfeel Amsoc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Lent

Heh Heh. So if this comes off we can say "OK Israel, no more bunker-busting smart bumbs for you! Cut off! Bad Israel."


114 posted on 01/20/2005 4:25:16 PM PST by johnb838 (Oldthinkers unbellyfeel Amsoc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: anotherview

I hope Israel does. It sure would give us cover.


115 posted on 01/20/2005 4:57:33 PM PST by conservative blonde (Conservative Blonde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Prophet in the wilderness
Yes, basically, it is the 707, but, under the military classification it is the KC/C - 135 Tanker.

Israel's tankers are conversions of the 707, which due to its 4-inch-wider cabin, is differentiated from the -135 family by Boeing (indeed, Boeing briefly used the 717 designation before adopting the USAF designation of C/KC-135). The only countries to actually buy -135s off the line are the US and France (-F models); the US later sold some surplus aircraft to Turkey and Singapore.

Also, 707s that were used for transport by the USAF/USN (as opposed to radar and C3 duty) were termed C-137s (the most famous of which were the former Air Force Ones).

116 posted on 01/20/2005 5:08:34 PM PST by steveegg (The secret goal of lieberals - to ensure that no future generation can possibly equal theirs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

Re Cheney's gift to David Ivry: I bet Ivry really cherishes that. Very thoughtfully done by VP Cheney.


117 posted on 01/20/2005 5:10:50 PM PST by unfortunately a bluestater (kag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: anotherview

Since this administration carries its chess board everywhere, I have to believe all of the veep's statements on this were carefully prepared and are part of a strategy to put the squeeze on Iran. I'm guessing we and the Israelis have some pretty damning facts that suggest or point to Iran planning to do more than talk about its intent to do serious bodily harm to the nation of Israel.

It's a huge departure from our previous high-level administration statements regarding Israel.


118 posted on 01/20/2005 5:14:43 PM PST by GretchenM (It remains to be seen what God will do through a person who gives Him all the glory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: unfortunately a bluestater

I'm sure you're right. Considering the fact that it was ten years after the fact, and a sentiment misaligned with American policy, I'm sure Cheney's words were heartfelt.


119 posted on 01/20/2005 5:26:56 PM PST by SJackson ( Bush is as free as a bird, He is only accountable to history and God, Ra'anan Gissin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: demsux

The harm could be that Iraqi airspace would be used to get the Israeli Air Force to Iran- both ways. And that would require the consent of both the Iraqi govt. and the U.S.

I'd worry about a million whacked out Iranian soldiers streaming into Iraq in the aftermath- they've done it before. And don't think the "world" wouldn't be on their side given the situation.


120 posted on 01/20/2005 5:40:06 PM PST by Burr5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

What a fearless man.
He is such an incredible asset to our nation.

I actually hope Israel 'does' it.

That our special forces have infiltrated and are ready to 'hit' the mullahs and ayatollahs in a comprehensive purge... and that the jew hating, christian hating islamists who run Iran are deposed with extrem prejudice.

Time to move on to creating the next non-nuclear 'democracy' in the region.


121 posted on 01/20/2005 5:45:09 PM PST by eccl1212
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Burr5

one specific mission for a MOAB is large enemy troop concentrations.


122 posted on 01/20/2005 5:45:48 PM PST by kingattax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Burr5

I'd worry about a million whacked out Iranian soldiers streaming into Iraq



I wouldn't.


123 posted on 01/20/2005 5:46:18 PM PST by eccl1212
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: HardStarboard

"they have been playing with fire aiding the insurgents in Iraq...and I believe that Bush will not let it go on much longer without acting."

I have long thought this and believe that what you say here is key. The Iranians have played and are playing a very dangerous game of chicken here.


124 posted on 01/20/2005 5:50:51 PM PST by wolf24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: anotherview
Cheney voices concern that Israel may attack Iran

Or is he gently chiding Israel for being dilatory?

125 posted on 01/20/2005 5:54:37 PM PST by ThanhPhero ( Nguoi hanh huong den La Vang)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: montag813

LOL. Well said.


126 posted on 01/20/2005 7:30:40 PM PST by mench (I'm switching parties - becoming a republican and gaining political perfection.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Marano NYC
The Israelis do not have the capability to do this. I wish they did but it is up to us.

If I am not mistaken, the Israelis have submarines capable of launching cruise missles.

They do not have to fly over Iraq to attack Iran.

127 posted on 01/20/2005 7:40:29 PM PST by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: anotherview

Maybe he's afraid that they'll beat us to it?


128 posted on 01/20/2005 7:42:07 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: okie01
I will look on the net but I do not think they have submarines with this capability. They do have land based missiles but I do not know what the accuracy factor is with them. More likely the Israeli Navy has some surface ships with that capability.
Do they have enough missiles and platforms from sea. I tend to doubt it.
129 posted on 01/20/2005 7:57:45 PM PST by Marano NYC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: okie01
I stand corrected they apparently do have the capability of submarine based cruise missiles. Do they have enough of them is another question ?
Cruise missiles are slow and can be be shot down but it is interesting. I do not think they would pack enough payload to do the job conventionally.
130 posted on 01/20/2005 8:11:20 PM PST by Marano NYC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Marano NYC
What if a pair of Israeli subs were seen traversing the Suez Canal, on their way to the Indian Ocean?

Would pucker some butts in Teheran, eh?

131 posted on 01/20/2005 8:28:34 PM PST by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Mitchell
Maybe the headline writer should have called it a warning to Iran
rather than an expression of concern.

Loftus thinks Cheney might be hinting to Iran
that the new Iraqi government might be willing
to grant permission for Israeli planes to fly over Iraq

132 posted on 01/20/2005 8:37:16 PM PST by Allan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: okie01
Absolutely. The whole submarine class was apparently built with that in mind. These missiles are apparently nuclear armed . There would be no victory lap in Tehran.
Yet there is an increasingly unpopular regime. This regime has used 13 year olds to clear mine fields.
Iran could be in for a counter revolution within the next five years. An attack might strengthen the regime.
133 posted on 01/20/2005 8:37:30 PM PST by Marano NYC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Marano NYC
Iran could be in for a counter revolution within the next five years.

I believe today's inaugural speech might have advanced the timetable.

It is conceivable that, yes, an attack would strengthen the regime. But Cheney's statement smacks of "an ace in the hole" in the event it comes to a showdown before the regime has tumbled.

134 posted on 01/20/2005 8:58:15 PM PST by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Southack
This is no feint

Agreed. The hit on Iran is definitely coming.

135 posted on 01/20/2005 9:07:51 PM PST by Lijahsbubbe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: HardStarboard
I believe that Bush will not let it go on much longer without acting.

From your lips to Gods ears, I hope

136 posted on 01/20/2005 9:32:29 PM PST by edchambers (Neocon foot-soldier of the Haliburton death squad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: powderblue67

I wonder how the Israelis woould plan such an attack.
When attacking the reactor in osirak, or what it was called, they just had to fly over Jordan for a hit a run
Now they would have to fly over Jordan and Iraq.

Not necessarily. In '98, Israel and Turkey entered into a military pact of some sort. I'm not clear on all the details, but IINM, it involved letting Israel train in Turkish air space. (Turkey borders on Iran).

Of course, with the current Erdogan government in power in Turkey, who knows what the state of Israeli-Turkish military relations are?

es


137 posted on 01/20/2005 10:16:00 PM PST by eddiespaghetti ( with the meatball eyes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: eddiespaghetti

late bump interesting conversation.


138 posted on 01/20/2005 11:50:37 PM PST by jokar (On line data base http://www.trackingthethreat.com/db/index.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: IAF ThunderPilot

Ping


139 posted on 01/21/2005 5:52:01 AM PST by Convert from ECUSA (tired of shucking and jiving)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steveegg

I wonder ? if they can build new tankers from the new BOEING 747 ADVANCED ( but still will be the 747 - 500 series in my book, this is ? if they even go ahead with making a new version of the 747 ) if they can get the operational cost down of operating the 747 , could it make a nice sized tanker for the US military ?


140 posted on 01/21/2005 6:23:01 AM PST by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM 53 : 1 The ( FOOL ) hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: kingattax
You mean, MOAB/S .... Plural...... : )
141 posted on 01/21/2005 6:27:37 AM PST by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM 53 : 1 The ( FOOL ) hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Prophet in the wilderness
I wonder ? if they can build new tankers from the new BOEING 747 ADVANCED ( but still will be the 747 - 500 series in my book, this is ? if they even go ahead with making a new version of the 747 ) if they can get the operational cost down of operating the 747 , could it make a nice sized tanker for the US military ?

Boeing's been pitching a tanker version of the 767 as a replacement for the aging fleet of KC-135s and KC-10s (converted DC-10s). Of course, our "friendly neighborhood watchdogs" in the Beltway don't exactly like that deal (officially because of the cost; more likely because having tankers allows the USAF to have global reach).

142 posted on 01/21/2005 6:30:28 AM PST by steveegg (The secret goal of lieberals - to ensure that no future generation can possibly equal theirs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: steveegg
And why should it that be a BAD IDEA ? for the USAF to have GLOBAL REACH ? ,,,, it must be the lame brained liberals who don't want this to happen.
143 posted on 01/21/2005 6:38:04 AM PST by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM 53 : 1 The ( FOOL ) hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Prophet in the wilderness
And why should it that be a BAD IDEA ? for the USAF to have GLOBAL REACH ? ,,,, it must be the lame brained liberals who don't want this to happen.

Ring-a-ding-ding.

144 posted on 01/21/2005 6:40:27 AM PST by steveegg (The secret goal of lieberals - to ensure that no future generation can possibly equal theirs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: anotherview

So, what happens if Iran's nuke facility goes "boom" and nobody takes credit?

"Gee, it musta' been Israel." "Oy, it had to be the Americans." "I think the Russians did it." "Pakistan must be responsible; they didn't want to have to watch two directions at once." "India could have..."


145 posted on 01/21/2005 6:48:44 AM PST by JimRed (Investigate, overturn and prosecute vote fraud in the State of Washington !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steveegg
Gee, thanks for throwing in Milwaukee in that (though, in truth, you can throw in any and every American city).

Not exactly my favorite way of turning a blue state red.

146 posted on 01/21/2005 6:53:29 AM PST by JimRed (Investigate, overturn and prosecute vote fraud in the State of Washington !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: garyhope
What is the "Samson Option"?

Samson pulled the palace down on his enemies, and died along with them. An endangered Israel may well use battlefield nukes so close to home that harm will be done to themselves.

147 posted on 01/21/2005 7:00:30 AM PST by JimRed (Investigate, overturn and prosecute vote fraud in the State of Washington !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: gakrak
It should also be noted that we are pledged to support Israel not a good position for Iran.

Isn't Russia pledged to support Iran???? And Syria if we come to that?

148 posted on 01/21/2005 7:19:25 AM PST by Lady Heron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: anotherview

Frankly, I am surprised that the Israelis have shown as much restraint as they have the past several years, especially during the first Gulf War when the scuds were fired upon them.


149 posted on 01/21/2005 7:21:15 AM PST by Polyxene (For where God built a church, there the Devil would also build a chapel - Martin Luther)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Middle-O-Road
Not only China would be a problem, but Russia and Europe will not want us walking into Iran when the oil of Iraq in their eyes is under our control and we are sitting pretty next door to Saudi Arabia.

Oil was the only reason for all of the squealing done by the world when we walked into Iraq (note no squealing when we went into Afghanistan). If we do more than just bomb Iran...say walk in and set up one more democracy under our "help" the world will march. To much of the worlds oil under our control.

They themselves would never leave those countries, to much power would come with controlling that oil, and they will not trust us to leave since we know how they have been moving against us. They would expect us to stay to protect ourselves, they would in our shoes.

I have said before WWIII has started it is just not out in the open yet.

150 posted on 01/21/2005 7:45:13 AM PST by Lady Heron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-166 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson