What if you add one of these? 
Posted on 12/15/2005 2:48:58 AM PST by F14 Pilot
Former justice department prosecutor and intelligence expert John Loftus says that Israel is unable to thwart Iran's nuclear projects through military action – but that there is an alternative.
"Israel only has a few option and striking back is not one of 'em," Loftus told Israel National Radio's Tovia Singer. "The F-16-IL version that Israel possesses only has a combat radius of about 2,200 kilometers and you would need about 3,000 to hit the hard targets in Iran. Iran saw what [Israel] did to the Osarik reactor in Iraq and have spread their nuclear development stuff all over the country and a lot of the stuff is in the northeast corner of the country – completely out of Israel's flight range. So, unless Iraq votes to allow Israel over flight rights to attack Iran – which isn't going to happen - then Israel simply doesn't have the fuel to fly around Saudi Arabia to come up the Straits of Hormuz and attack Iran. There is simply not a military option available to Israel."
Loftus stressed, however, that there are other options that are likely to succeed and are already being put into effect. "The Bush administration is hoping that, ironically with [French [President] Jacques] Chirac's help, UN pressure will cause a regime-change in Syria. That the [UN's] Mehlis investigation [examining the Syrian governments connection to the assassination of former Lebanese PM Rafik Hariri] is going to come down hard and heavy. The US military is chomping at the bit to go across the border and take out the terror bases in Syria that Assad claims are not there. Once Syria is gone, Iran is isolated, with US troops on both their borders, in Afghanistan and in Iraq."
The intelligence expert, with contacts in the Pentagon says that the strategy is not for the US to actually invade Iran, but to affect a regime-change. "One of the intelligence agencies, which shall remain nameless, asked me to hold a conference of dissident groups in Iran. We are holding that conference and getting ready for regime-change."
Singer asked Loftus why US fighter jets do not bomb Iranian nuclear targets on their own from aircraft carriers in the region.
"That's a real good question that has been carefully studied," Loftus answered. "There are over 360 separate targets inside Iran that have been identified. Most of them are non-vulnerable – many underneath residential neighborhoods and Islamic shrines. These are not places we can bomb. The Iranians were paying attention when Iraq's reactor was bombed and have learned the lessons."
"So what is to be done to bring about a regime-change?" singer asked.
"The aircraft carriers are there to defend the picket-line of ships that will place a blockade on the Straits of Hormuz," Loftus said. "Ninety percent of Iran's economy is based on oil exports – so a blockade of as little as three weeks can cause their economy to collapse, the people to rise up and the mullahs to be overthrown. The problem with this is that Iran knows that this is the most likely scenario and they have been preparing for three years to thwart it. They [Iran] have developed vessels whose job is to sink as many oil tankers as possible to block the Straits of Hormuz. Once two, three or four vessels are sunk, you have cut off 40% of the world's oil supply. So the US doesn't mind – we have a six-month stockpile of oil - but the EU is much more fragile and susceptible to oil shocks. So we might have to dump a large share of the US stockpile on the world market until the regime falls."
Asked whether he really thinks the government will topple so easily, Loftus responded, "It is hard to do polling in Iran – you have to do it by telephone and you therefore only end up talking to the urban population. But we found that 83% of the Iranian urban population hates the mullahs and don't want to grow up under a dictatorship. Most of the country is young and wants music videos and TV and not the mullahs."
ticking. . one, two, three
The clock is ticking.
The drums of war have started..
Loftus is an idiot.
By the same argument, we didn't need to invade Germany. All we had to do was precipitate "regime change."
Both arguments are accurate, but the problem is implementing the strategy.
Politically correct insanity.
We CAN bomb these places if they are being used to hide or conceal military targets.
The resolve to defend ourselves is what we seem to be lacking.
-
"But we found that 83% of the Iranian urban population hates the mullahs and don't want to grow up under a dictatorship. Most of the country is young and wants music videos and TV and not the mullahs.""
Not to be confused with "We are willing to die for our freedom"
I do not care about Islamic shrines, but simple well buildt bunkers will be a severe problem to any air strike. Also the decentral targets will make everything extremely difficult.
This guy is right. The best alternative would be a blow from inside. We should help the Iranians in Iran to kill their theocracy and their contemporary gouvernment by themselves.
$500 per barrel=$20 per gallon
Oh, yeah, let's hope that the UN does something.
Since they have such a good track record...
What if you add one of these?
This is the point. To move something there you would need "boots on the ground". Bombing will not solve the problem. The question is if your gouvernment has the will to do such an invasion since they are the only nation that would have the resources to do this. Israel itselves is far too weak and too small to invade a country like Iran over such a long distance.
Intelligence Expert apologizes.
John Loftus on "How the Bush family made its fortune from the Nazis"
And there were many attempts to do this, the reason we had to invade in the end was because there was no viable alternative to the Nazis we could deal with.
By 1942 we had stopped trying to enable regime change through the German Office corp, each attempt had ended in disaster
It would seem that Israel has a different opinion...
From another article:
Thank God, Israel has the means at its disposal to bring about the downfall of this extremist regime in Iran. There will be no second 'final solution'," Sharon's spokesman Raanan Gissin said.
They be a whoooole lota wishful thinkin' goin' on heuh.
Israel doesnt understand the word "cant." Not too smart to underestimate their ability to strike any time and any place.
He's got the main idea right.(the rest is crap) We need to "affect a regime-change".
Iraq's economy under Saddam was almost entirely based on oil exports. They were cut off for more than 10 years, the economy collapsed, and Saddam remained in power. Why should we believe that it would be different in Iran?
Not to mention that the economies of Japan, China, India and Western Europe are all dependent on Iranian oil. What do you expect them to be doing while we're cutting off their oil supply?
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.