Posted on 12/21/2007 3:30:05 PM PST by DBCJR
Israel will launch an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities on its own if the rest of the world does not take action, said Bruce Riedel, a former CIA official and senior adviser to three presidents, including George W. Bush.
...
“Israel is not going to allow its nuclear monopoly to be threatened.”
Ironically, Riedel said the release of the National Intelligence Estimate report, which asserted that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003, made an Israeli attack even more likely, because it could make other nations reluctant to impose stricter sanctions on the Islamic Republic.
“In the international scene, Russia’s decision to renew fuel shipments to Iran’s main nuclear facility at Bushehr was interpreted by many analysts as stemming directly from the NIE’s publication,” the Jerusalem Post reported.
“Another development possibly stemming from the report is Russia and China’s hardened position on further sanctions against Tehran.
Some American experts are skeptical of Israel’s ability to tackle Iran alone. But David Alright of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington told Newsweek that Israel’s air strike on an alleged Syrian nuclear facility in September could be seen as a test run for a future attack on Iran’s facilities — as well as a warning to Tehran.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
We need to back Israel in this. Let them lead the way, do what they need to do, but back them in the court of international opinion. We don't need another foreign front but we could use an able ally.
Nothing will be done. There is little to bomb from the air as much of it is buried deep underground and it is scattered around. I think after not finding nukes in Iraq we will see less to virtually no preemption any more unless there is hard proof. A city will have to be destroyed before Iran is dealt with. And I am not even sure Iran will destroy a city. They have a loud mouth leader that needs to be taken out. I am in favor of not invading Iran (which is what it would take) but working to covertly help rebels within Iran take it over from within. We have to find smarter and less messier ways of dealing with these nutcases.
Go ahead, Israel, do whatever you need to do. You have the support of a huge part of the American people. We will get your back on the internet; other than that, there’s not much we can do but send you lots of pizzas and burgers. Better do it before there is a Democrat in the WH.
I don’t doubt that Israel can significantly damage Iran’s nuclear facilities, throwing them back years. They won’t, of course, get as much as we would, nor will they be able to degrade the rest of Iran’s military as we would.
What puzzles me is how Israel could do this without going through (US-controlled) Iraqi airspace. The Saudis won’t let Israel do this, and they have a bunch of modern planes and 4 AWACS. The Turks will be actively hostile. Going in along the Syrian-Jordanian border is feasible, or perhaps even sending in a spec ops team to secure an airbase in far eastern Syria...but either way Israel then has to fly over Iraq. How that’s done without the US being blamed is utterly beyond me. Heck, no matter what Israel does, we’ll be blamed for helping them. So we might as well go in all the way, bombing those 1200 targets all over Iran that were bandied about roughly 2-3 months ago.
Maybe Israel uses sub-launched cruise missiles, but I don’t see this as realistic. They can’t have that many, and their style is to rely on thinking and dedicated human beings to make sure that targets get destroyed.
bmflr
.
.
.
According to Intrade, the winner of the December 12th GOP debate was... Duncan Hunter.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1938773/posts
“I am in favor of not invading Iran (which is what it would take) but working to covertly help rebels within Iran take it over from within. We have to find smarter and less messier ways of dealing with these nutcases.”
Much agreed, but that’s against the law. So, I say back Israel if they want to act. They get down to business, make it quick, and make it clean. I like it.
We can sell them planes, bombs, and technology.
No, it wouldn't. There was a "secret" report leaked a couple months back (very much on purpose, and for a purpose) which talked about how the US could destroy about 1,200 Iranian targets in about 3 days. Note that they don't have 1,200 nuclear-related targets - this report spoke of systematically destroying every air defense site, every command and control facility, every airbase, naval base, intelligence facilities, Revolutionary Guard bases, etc. It would destroy their ability to strike back, and leave the regime tremendously weakened. No to nation-building. Sometimes you have to use a military as it was intended - to kill people and break things. Let Iran rebuild itself.
ping
“The Turks will be actively hostile. “
IDF has good relations with the Turkish Army (who really runs turkey).
Israel will fly low. The pilots know they might not make it back. We will act like “Wha’??? We knew nothing about it?” It would be nice if we could get them the latest bunker busters. You are probably right about not effecting enough damage.
I’m not real certain about invading Iran in a conventional way either - we don’t need to, We know pretty much where most of their stuff is anyway and we only need to take out a small amount of infrastructure to cripple them.
I disagree with you about Israel not doing anything about it though.
When Israel bombed that nuke facility in Syria, they accomplished two things.
First, they rid Syria or North Korean nuke material and they sent Iran the message that they would indeed bomb them.
I seriously doubt that the US will do anything though - we seem to have lost our stones.
Just MHO
This is not the first such story, and not even today. If we knew what goes on in the closed rooms when only national diplomats are talking to each other we would find ‘Godfather’ type movies and shows tame. Nothing along those lines suggested in these stories is even close to reality and nothing like that will be done unless the trade deals fall through.
Everybody should watch the Osirak documentary, when Israel destroyed Saddam’s nuke site in 1981:
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHr5FuBdo-g
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMquHOWQbnE&feature=related
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wDeFQ4cArA&feature=related
Part 4:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVyZm05xEpE&feature=related
Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oH6RxN0-UDg&feature=related
I saw it. 1200 targets? As I said it is not really feasible plus you would have to invade to finish the job. Many facilities are deep underground and can’t be destroyed from the air.
Yet just last week Turkish warplanes attacked PKK targets inside that same "(US-Controlled) Iraqi airspace" and we were shocked! shocked! to find gambling at Rick's Casino.
My guess is that there is a lot of very serious action happening behind the scenes right now. The Israeli attack in Syria is part of it as well as the Turkish air strike. Both of which demonstrate Iran's extreme vulnerability despite their recent acquisition of advanced AD systems from Russia.
What is happening is very opaque. But my best guess is that the Saudis are orchestrating a reproachment between the US and Iran (see also Rice's recent statements about no permanent enemies, and Ahmedidejhad's very public Haj).
It is just a guess but there may be lots of carrots and sticks in play, the IDF being our version of Hezbollah, i.e. a formidable proxy force that can be brought to bear without direct responsibility. Again, just my best guess based on what is in the public domain right now.
The Syria facility was one facility. 1200 targets without counting targets deep underground. This is a different situation.
” What is happening is very opaque. But my best guess is that the Saudis are orchestrating a reproachment between the US and Iran (see also Rice’s recent statements about no permanent enemies, and Ahmedidejhad’s very public Haj).
It is just a guess but there may be lots of carrots and sticks in play, the IDF being our version of Hezbollah, i.e. a formidable proxy force that can be brought to bear without direct responsibility. Again, just my best guess based on what is in the public domain right now.”
Interesting perspective. You are probably right about the carrots & sticks. We should come out with some infuriating obligations from this. One poster suggested we should take their President out. Since that is against the law, I say we should help Israel do it.
Reality sets in. I still think we should coach a plan for Israel to take out Iran’s President. That country is ripe for revolution.
Don't be so pessimistic. The Hitler of our time may take himself out. After all, he is way up the flag pole with a whole lot of grease below him and it is all of his own doing. With luck, we could basically win this without a fight.
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.