US Won’t Promise Won’t Shoot Down Israeli Planes

Israel National News ^

[GonzoGOP]

How would they explain Israeli planes bombing Iran?

"Sir we don't know how but they jammed our radar and we were unable to make the intercept." Also we don't have missile coverage over all of Iraq, only around the cities and air bases. If they traversed the deserted areas the only threat of intercept would be from fighters, and those take time to get off the ground.

The problem is not in the going, but in the getting back. On the way to Iran we could say we got caught by surprise and were simply unable to do anything about the Israeli incursion. On the way back there could be no such excuse. We would not have the luxury of neutrality. We would either have to shoot them down and go to war with Israel, or allow them free passage and go to war with Iran.

It is the job of the State department to ensure we never get into a no win situation like this. But the state department has been tested and found wanting. The poor foreign policy of Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and Obama has put us into an untenable situation. We no longer have the ability to take out Iran quickly and surgically. Our economy is a shambles and would not survive the high fuel prices such a war would bring about. Yet we cannot risk Iran getting the bomb in a deliverable form. Finally even if we allow someone else to strike the blow the counter blow is most likely going to fall on our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. No matter what happens we are screwed. Obama, being a coward like his predecessors, is trying to stall in hopes the problem will just go away. It of course won't, it will just get worse.

A wise government will decide on a course of action, prepare for the consequences, and take the beating. Unfortunately wisdom appears to be a commodity in short supply these days.

Option I:
If we are going to stop Iran, fill up the strategic oil reserve, and then hit them with everything we have left. Full WWII style mobilization and fuel rationing would be required. The economy will collapse and it will get very ugly on the home front. Explain to the people why their suffering is necessary.

Option II:
Accept a nuclear Iran. Welcome them into the nuclear club with the same speech that Kennedy gave Kruchev about the Cuban Missile Crisis . Any missile launched by any terrorist group against any target will be considered a direct attack by Iran on the United States. We will respond with a full retaliatory strike on all military installations and population centers in Iran. Any attack by any one and everybody dies. And you have to make them believe it. And since they are ruthless dictators you can't fake it. If you make this kind of threat you have to be so stone cold that you know you will actually carry it out.
When we made that threat to the Russians in 1962 Kruchev realized that Kennedy would give that order and that men like Curtis LeMay would carry out that order. Mutual assured destruction will keep the peace, but only if the other guy believes that you are cold hearted enough to push the button, knowing full well it guarantees your own destruction as well.

I don't think the liberal buffoon in the white house has the guts to do either. He can't face the economic damage of total war. And can't convince Amaddogjihad that he will burn the world in response to an Iranian attack. And if i have doubts Amaddogjihad in Iran sure as heck is going to have his doubts. And in this game the other guy having doubts can get a lot of people dead very fast.

[verity]

Thank you for your response.

Now that I reread your post in the proper context, I find it most informative. Again, thanks.

[Jewbacca]

Sorry about the confusion. I think I do well in English, then I do things like that.

[Rutles4Ever]

"Sir we don't know how but they jammed our radar and we were unable to make the intercept." Also we don't have missile coverage over all of Iraq, only around the cities and air bases. If they traversed the deserted areas the only threat of intercept would be from fighters, and those take time to get off the ground.

Good point. The Osirak bombing run was at very low altitude across the desert.

We would not have the luxury of neutrality. We would either have to shoot them down and go to war with Israel, or allow them free passage and go to war with Iran.

Excellent point. There wouldn't even be a way to coordinate a ditch-and-rescue operation in that region to avoid having to fly back. The conundrum of who we would go to war against, I still submit, would pit the military against Obama. Strategically, we need Israel, no ifs ands or buts. Any perceived amputation of relations or allied status will be pounced on by Syria and Iran. Which might explain some of the press leaks about drawing up attack plans against Iran, perhaps in anticipation of such a scenario. There would be some unusually stern public rebukes made by our State Department towards Netanyahu, but in the end, I don't think there's any way we can or should stop them, and they (State Dept. and Bibi) know it.

Finally even if we allow someone else to strike the blow the counter blow is most likely going to fall on our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. No matter what happens we are screwed. Obama, being a coward like his predecessors, is trying to stall in hopes the problem will just go away. It of course won't, it will just get worse.

This seems to be the modus operandi in all facets of American culture today - delaying accountability in the face of certain reckoning which becomes worse with each passing day.

Option I: If enough people complained that "Big Water" is ruining the world, people would prefer to dehydrate and die. Convincing people that we need to make heavy sacrifices because we rely on oil, and this society would choose enslavement and misery instead.

Option II: Our threats of full retaliation carry no credibility in this day and age. We would rather be conquered by Marxist Kenyans.

And if i have doubts Amaddogjihad in Iran sure as heck is going to have his doubts. And in this game the other guy having doubts can get a lot of people dead very fast.

Everything changes across the globe if it becomes the perception that the U.S. is no longer a nuclear backstop. You're absolutely right that we have to convey the certainty that we would retaliate. We sent that message for Stalin's consumption at Hiroshima. There's no certain way to send that message, except throught the charisma of a the Commander in Chief - none of which Obama possesses. He's weak, and they know it. If the current nuclear club represents the New York mafia in "The Godfather", then Ahmadinejad is Michael Corleone. Don't be surprised if he "settles all accounts", with this much weakness from the other "families" staring him in the face.

[swarthyguy]

Which one, do you know? It would be explosive for the citizens of that statelet to be aware of that.

Oman may be the best bet.

[Fred Hayek]

It is Oman. Besides Oman is already selling LNG to Israel.

After Gulf War 1, some of the smaller Gulf States were on somewhat more favorable terms with Israel, notably due to Israel absorbing the Scud hits without retaliating. I was surprised at the time by Hosni Mubarak’s stating that an Israeli strike against Iraq being not a good idea mostly due to complicating the airspace above Iraq and the increased potential for “friendly fire” shootdowns - describing an operational issue. No, I am not a Mubarak fan.

[SunkenCiv]

the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the U.S. Army, Mike Malen... "We have a strong exceptional relationship with Israel. I spent much time with my colleagues in Israel. And so we have a very clear understanding of where we are. Beyond that, I just would not want to get into speculation about what might happen and who might do what. Frankly, I do not think it serves any purpose. I hope that the issue will be resolved in the way which will never have to answer a question like this. "

Thanks jhpigott.