Posted on 07/13/2008 5:32:15 AM PDT by kellynla
The Sunday Times of London reported this weekend that "President George W. Bush has told the Israeli government that he may be prepared to approve a future military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiations with Tehran break down." The Times report quoted a senior Pentagon official as its source.
With increased resistance from the Pentagon and the November elections closing in, the White House may be choosing its next best option in dealing with Tehran: to have Israel launch strikes on Iran's nuclear weapons facilities.
The paper said Bush has told Israel it has an "amber light" to proceed.
“Amber means get on with your preparations, stand by for immediate attack and tell us when you’re ready,” the paper quoted a U.S. official as saying.
Military experts are not sure that Israel's military forces can do the job. Iran has dispersed its nuclear program sites around the country, and some weapons facilities are said to be deep within the earth. The U.S. has special bunker-busting bombs that could destroy such underground laboratories, but Israel does not.
Iran has made clear it will retaliate against Israel and the U.S. if either nation attacks it. Last week, Iran's military demonstrated its reach by firing nine long- and medium-range missiles -- including the modified Shahab-3 ballistic missile, which can easily strike Israel from western Iran.
Political factors may be playing a role in strike plans for both Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
Bush is in lame-duck status, and Democratic Sen. Barack Obama, the front-runner to win the presidency in November, says he favors the use of diplomacy over force when dealing with Iran.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
If this actually happens, which I doubt, it will be the least surprising “surprise attack” in history. The Iranians must be fully prepared for this by now.
Obama favors the use of diplomacy over force when dealing with Iran. Where have I heard that?
So who decides when "negotiations" have broken down? What criteria? All Nutjob has to do is keep talking and he will have uninterrupted freedom for development of a strike?
“this actually happens, which I doubt”
Wanna bet?
It’s not a matter of “if” but “when!”
News / IAF Unveils Squadron Of Jets Said To Be Capable Of Striking Iran
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2044220/posts
When one side talks while the other side says no, NO, NO!, how do you know when negotiations have broken down?
after the u.s. election and
before the swearing in of the new president.
An Israeli attack will certainly have repercussions within Iraq. It is going to hurt us in dealing with the Iraqis and AQ will use it against us throughout the Muslim world. That is a given we must factor in regardless of whether Israel or we carry out the attack. Oil prices will also go thru the roof for some period.
I still say an attack on Iran is useless and counter-productive. Tehran will get the bomb eventually, no matter how many times we attack, and an attack now will send oil prices through the roof and send the global economy into a recession.
Is it worth all that to stave Tehran off for a few years?
Translation - Obama doesn’t care if Iran gets the bomb and attacks Israel, just as long as Iran leaves the US alone.
“I still say an attack on Iran is useless and counter-productive. Tehran will get the bomb eventually”
Exactly the same complaint could have been lodged against the Israeli attack on Osirak in 1981. Last time I checked, Iraq never acquired nuclear weapons. I’d say: mission accomplished!
“I still say an attack on Iran is useless and counter-productive. Tehran will get the bomb eventually, no matter how many times we attack, and an attack now will send oil prices through the roof and send the global economy into a recession.
Is it worth all that to stave Tehran off for a few years?”
And just where in Israel do you live?
That’s what I thought.
If you lived in Israel, you would have a very different opinion.
And since you are a “reagan fanatic”; because Reagan didn’t retaliate to the 1983 Beirut bombing of the Marine Corps barracks, his failure to retaliate contributed to the ongoing muzzie terrorism.
If you want to stop terrorism, you hit back!
And hit back HARD!
You're right. To have any lasting effect, Iran would need to be invaded, and every mullah strung up to the nearest lamp post. Then we would need to leave with the warning that the next time we show up, Iran would be treated like Carthage
Won't help :)
Wow! This anonymous Pentagon source really went out on a limb with this one!
“You’re right. To have any lasting effect, Iran would need to be invaded, and every mullah strung up to the nearest lamp post. Then we would need to leave with the warning that the next time we show up, Iran would be treated like Carthage “
Actually, your “plan” sounds like EXACTLY what needs to be done there.
Iran will not be stopped from getting the bomb except by force. They are simply “too close to the prize” now to give up. And that prize is the greatest of all, for those crazen Islamics who crave the ultimate “jihadic power”.
If we are unwilling to use force to stop them, we will be sowing the seeds that beget the nuclear whirlwind that we will eventually reap.
I say “do what needs to be done”. But don’t do it until AFTER the election, and keep up the plausible denials until that time. We don’t want to throw the election to Obama, if that can be helped.
- John
An attack on nuclear facilities will only produce a delay, as you point out.
An attack on a few prominent government leaders, at the same time as a facilities attack will produce a much longer delay -- possibly indefinite.
And, by the way, a thorough "house-cleaning" at the top could produce a very short-lived spike in oil prices, followed by a long-term downward trend as new leaders are convinced that increasing supply would be good for their health.
P.S. Widespread casualties in the population of nuclear workers could produce a job-change mentality.
Won't help :)
Hope you're right. But the one thing history teaches us about war is that it never goes the way people expected. How many people in 2003 predicted it would take five years to get things in Iraq finally under control? I'm afraid all the glib talk about "surgical" strikes may be equally unrealistic.
“You’re right. To have any lasting effect, Iran would need to be invaded”
WRONG!
The Iranians just need to “take out their trash”
We don’t need any more of my fellow Marines playing “nursemaid” to a bunch of camel jockeys.
Let the Israelis take out the nuclear facilities and let the Iranians clean house!
We just need to “get off foreign oil” and DRILL HERE! DRILL NOW!
Semper Fi,
Kelly
I wasn't talking about sticking around to play nursemaid. I was talking about decapitating their leadership and leaving the same month. No "nation building", no rebuilding at all. Break it, tell them to fix it themselves, and tell them if we don't like how they fixed it, we'll come in and break it again
W and Israel decide and my guess, because Iran is a very “western leaning” population base, that will take over quickly, the out come will be far more positive than predicted by the MSM....
You’re talking about invading Iran with boots on the ground and that’s what I am against...I’ve seen enough dead Marines to last me a lifetime! And if you think we could invade Iran and be out in a month, you reeeeeeeeeely don’t know what you’re talking about!
Semper Fi,
Kelly
““You’re right. To have any lasting effect, Iran would need to be invaded””
I didn’t write that. The poster to whom I was replying did.
I _did_, however, agree with the gist of his post, whether he meant it or not.
I would be very happy to see Israel (with the help of the United States, which of course will be necessary) take out a large part of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, hopefully so much of it that “recovery” is all-but impossible.
- John
““You’re right. To have any lasting effect, Iran would need to be invaded””
I didn’t write that. The poster to whom I was replying did.
I _did_, however, agree with the gist of his post, whether he meant it or not.
soooooooooooo you agree but didn’t say it?
John Kerry is that you? LOL
Which is why I fully expect that the Israelis will have something imaginative in mind should the bomb-the-bejeepers-outta-them approach be ruled out :)
Wrong again!
Israel has the capability of an air-strike on Iran and without the assistance of America.
The ONLY way an attack would achieve its stated objective is to invade Iran with overwhelming ground forces, take Tehran and overthrow and kill the mullahs. This is not going to happen, however, since no one has the stomach to embark on a huge mission like that right now, especially with the U.S. preoccupied in Iran and Afghanistan and the rest of the West pissing its pants over the mention of ANY action against Iran.
Bombing Iran will NOT achieve the objective of stopping the Iranians from getting the bomb. Period. It would therefore fail in its objective of keeping Israel safe.
“Since you apparently are of the opinion we should attack Iran”
WRONG AGAIN... ISRAEL is of the “opinion” that THEY should attack Iran.
Try and get your facts straight before you address me!
“Bombing Iran will NOT achieve the objective of stopping the Iranians from getting the bomb. Period.”
The Israelis disagree. But then you apparently don’t know about their “opinion” now do you...stick to what you know...whatever that is. LOL
In case you hadn't noticed, we've got two wars going on already and we're fresh out of troops for a third.
And you really think one airstrike by one squadron's gonna do it, huh?
I hope it doesn’t happen. Gas skyrockets if it does. Economy tanks.
But NewsMax is an unlikely source of inside information leading up to an air strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. More likely a source of disinformation for propaganda purposes.
I put this story in that category.
I think the Iranians have made it pretty clear that they will retaliate against both Israel and the US if there is a strike against their nuclear facilities.
That means we/ Israel, or both will have to strike their airfields, missile bases,Silkworms along the Straits, etc. before the nuclear facilities or we and esp.Israel will face much destruction.
IOW pretty much an all out war.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2035442/posts?page=25#25
The Obamination gets elected Potus, and it is January 20, 2009.
The Obamination has just said his version of being sworn in as Potus:
“ I do solemnly swear [or affirm] that I will not support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, I will not bear true faith and allegiance to the same: that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and I will not faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me Allah. ”
As the Obamination starts to speak, his Pentagon guy, Muhammed Ragshead, with the football tells the Obamination, that shorty after he was sworn in, Israel destroyed the political and military assets of Iran and Syria. The Mossad has killed every al Queda leader in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Europe and America.
Also, Israeli leaders on world wide tv are showing and documenting the Obamination’s full Islamofascist connections and most of the rats in Congress. They have demanded the surrender of those members of Congress and the Obamination to Israel and Iraq for abetting the killing of innocent Israelis, Iraqis and Iranians by supporting Islamofascists.
George $oreA$$ and his family members and his various phoney non profit leaders in the USA and around the world are in Israel at this time being tried as War Criminals.
At this time GW gets up with Laura, and they wave goodbye to the Obamination and his Obamabots as they leave for Texas.
We should have destroyed Iran years ago. They continue to kill our troops in Iraq, and we do nothing. That, of itself, justifies our kicking thier asses.
“Israel has the capability of an air-strike on Iran and without the assistance of America.”
We shall see.
I predict that - when the attack comes - there will be _some_ level of American involvement. That will most likely involve in-air refueling of Israeli aircraft using American Air Force tankers.
The “assistance” of America will most certainly be its aquiescence; the entire premise of this article was that Israel knows it cannot proceed without the approval of the Bush administration. Would it get as much from an _Obama_ administration?
- John
“And you really think one airstrike by one squadron’s gonna do it, huh?”
not important what I “think”... the Israelis are prepared and capable of taking out the nuclear facilities...
well you better be budgeting for it...because it’s not a matter of “if” but “when”...
” I would budget for it, but energy is taking much of my disposable income already.
I’m saving what I can. But I am not sold on a three front war. I think it’s a mistake. Our fighting men and women are extended enough fighting a two front war. Asking more of them is not the correct path, in my opinion.”
Oh, we won’t be in Iran...
the Israelis will take out the nuclear facilities and the USN will guarantee the Straits will remain open but there won’t be any American troops in Iran. Let the Iranians “take out their own trash.”
And how many of them are there? Where are they located at?
We're busy kicking Iraqi and Afgan asses right at the moment.
If you don’t know then you have some research to do.
So in other words you don't know either. In fact, I'll bet nobody knows for sure except the Iranians. So how do you know that you've done the job?
“So in other words you don’t know either”
Wrong again.
You come on a thread to debate someone and then you ask that person to supply you with information that you don’t know...let me know when you learn how to debate.
Do your own research before you address me.
gezzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...the IQ level ‘round here drops by the minute! LMAO
“We’re busy kicking Iraqi and Afgan asses right at the moment.”
This is true, God bless our troops. The crap they have to endure...so that we can have our freedom.
However, Iran needs, at the least, a bloody nose—else they will continue to kill our troops with impunity.
“But military action against them should be total and complete, not some misguided pinprick action...”
I agree. Pinpricks are garbage. Iran needs it’s ass handed to it ala WW2...but to do that, we need to have a plan, weapons, and the troops.
More than all that, we need the will to do it.
And I strongly suggest you do the same. You come here with a pie-in-the-sky, armchair general position and you get all huffy when someone questions it. In your world Israel sends a couple of planes to Iran, drops a couple bombs, problem solved. That's insane. Any air campaign against Iran will be of considerable duration. All sites will need to be hit multiple times to ensure that they are destroyed, and then his again and again to prevent rebuilding. And if you don't know how many sites there are then you don't know if the job is done, or even how close you are to success. Air strikes will not do the job alone. They'll anger the Iranian leadership, build support for them among the populace, and increase the dangers.
A bloody nose tends to do nothing but piss off the recipient.
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.