Skip to comments.Cheney voices concern that Israel may attack Iran
Posted on 01/20/2005 1:01:34 PM PST by anotherview
click here to read article
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.
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.
Thanks for the information .
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.
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."
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.
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.
Sure thing. He waited, what was it two... three days after the election before he flattened Fallujah?
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.
israel did a good job on saddam's reactor.
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.
Heh Heh. So if this comes off we can say "OK Israel, no more bunker-busting smart bumbs for you! Cut off! Bad Israel."
I hope Israel does. It sure would give us cover.
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).
Re Cheney's gift to David Ivry: I bet Ivry really cherishes that. Very thoughtfully done by VP Cheney.
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.
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.
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.
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.
one specific mission for a MOAB is large enemy troop concentrations.
I'd worry about a million whacked out Iranian soldiers streaming into Iraq
"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.
Or is he gently chiding Israel for being dilatory?
LOL. Well said.
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.
Maybe he's afraid that they'll beat us to it?
Would pucker some butts in Teheran, eh?
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
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.
Agreed. The hit on Iran is definitely coming.
From your lips to Gods ears, I hope
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?
late bump interesting conversation.
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).
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..."
Not exactly my favorite way of turning a blue state red.
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.
Isn't Russia pledged to support Iran???? And Syria if we come to that?
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.
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.
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.