The X-37B Mystery Spacecraft Just Had Its Nine Month Mission Extended Indefinitely
Posted on 12/05/2011 10:31:36 AM PST by indpndtguy
The United States has pointedly ramped up its public warnings over the last few weeks about the risks of military action against Iran, accompanied by private words of caution to Israel, which sees Tehran’s nuclear push as a direct threat.
But so far, at least, comments by U.S. and Israeli officials suggest that Washington's private lobbying has yet to convince Israeli hard-liners and even some moderates that alternatives, like sanctions and diplomatic pressure, will ultimately succeed in curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
It is unclear whether the differing views are any indication about whether Israel might be moving closer to a go-it-alone military strike, an option Tel Aviv has ruled out for the moment. Indeed, that may ultimately not be the case.
Rhetoric has periodically escalated over the years, often bolstering pushes - like the present one - for tougher sanctions against Iran. Making the right decision
But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in a speech on Sunday widely seen within Israel as hinting about policy on Iran, spoke about making “the right decision at the right moment,” even when allies object.
A nuclear-armed Iran, Netanyahu has said, is an existential threat to Israel.
Netanyahu’s comments came on the heels of U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s strongest comments yet explaining America’s concerns about a military strike on Iran.
Panetta said it risked “an escalation” that could “consume the Middle East in confrontation and conflict that we would regret.” It could also hobble the fragile U.S. and European economies and might do little to actually stop Iran from getting an atomic weapon - a goal Tehran denies having.
Iran says its uranium enrichment is for peaceful purposes.
Panetta, citing conversations with his “Israeli friends,” said an attack would only set back Iran’s nuclear program by one to two years at best. He also warned about blowback to U.S. forces in the region.
“The United States would obviously be blamed and we could possibly be the target of retaliation from Iran, striking our ships, striking our military bases,” Panetta told a forum in Washington on Friday.
Panetta privately outlined U.S. concerns in talks with Israel's Defense Minister Ehud Barak in Canada last month, including the impact a strike would have on the world economy.
Analysts say Tehran could retaliate by closing the Strait of Hormuz, the waterway where about 40 percent of all traded oil passes. Global meltdown
President Barack Obama, who is gearing up for a re-election battle next year, has had more trouble than his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, in winning Israeli trust.
Bruce Riedel, a former adviser to the Obama administration and former senior CIA expert on the Middle East, said Washington was deeply wary of being dragged into a conflict that, from its perspective, might be unnecessary.
“Obama knows a strike on Iran by Israel will create a regional war and a global economic meltdown that America will have to clean up,” Riedel said.
“And he knows Israel - with its own considerable nuclear arsenal - does not face an existential threat from a nuclear Iran.”
But, even considering likely retaliation on U.S. forces, the top U.S. military officer told Reuters in an interview this week he did not know whether the Jewish state would even give the United States notice ahead of time if it decided to act.
General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also suggested there was a gap in perspective between Israel and the United States, which sees sanctions and diplomatic pressure as the right path to take on Iran.
“I’m not sure the Israelis share our assessment of that. And because they don’t and because to them this is an existential threat, I think probably that it’s fair to say that our expectations are different right now,” Dempsey said..
Iran is facing another wave of sanctions following a report last month by the U.N. nuclear watchdog which said Tehran appeared to have worked on designing an atom bomb and may still be pursuing secret research to that end.
Barak said on Thursday an Israeli attack on Iran was not imminent. But, asked about Dempsey’s comments to Reuters, Barak said Israel “greatly respects” the United States.
“But one must remember that ultimately, Israel is a sovereign nation and the Israeli government, defense forces and security services - not others - are responsible for Israel's security, future and existence,” Barak said.
Barak, in a radio interview, said Israel would be very glad if sanctions and diplomacy brought the Iranian leadership to a clear decision to abandon its nuclear military program.
But, “unfortunately, I think that is not going to happen,” he said.
ObaMao would be better off taking a permanent vacation by resigning. Even Joe Biteme doesn’t live so deep in fantasyland.
The X-37B Mystery Spacecraft Just Had Its Nine Month Mission Extended Indefinitely
Vote YES! on lake iran......
The combination of the two is a recipe for a partial, if not a complete, civilizational collapse.
Nothing will happen on Iran until the Syria gambit is resolved.
Iran says its uranium enrichment is for peaceful purposes.And that's B.S. And, they quote this joker:
Bruce Riedel, a former adviser to the Obama administration and former senior CIA expert on the Middle East, said... "Obama knows a strike on Iran by Israel will create a regional war and a global economic meltdown that America will have to clean up... And he knows Israel -- with its own considerable nuclear arsenal -- does not face an existential threat from a nuclear Iran."Yeah, sure, a country some dozens of miles across wouldn't cease to exist from a couple of nuclear bombs, not at all. In fact, by the same reasoning, the US was never in any danger of nuclear annihilation by Soviet warheads on ICBMs.
“... the argument Obama has made against the strike to the Israelis basically comes down to “... it will ... cost me my re-election”.
How do we encourage the Israelis to take out Iran? What’s not to like about a twofur that takes out a domestic and a foreign enemy?
When faced with crazy imams
With atom bombs
Just what is a Jew
Supposed to do?
Join the Left
In Islamo-love-ins?
Or go off meekly
To the ovens?
No, I don’t think so
Never again
On none but G-d
And the IDF
Should they depend
I did buy some additional potassium iodide this year. (Just on a hunch)
The US recently tested a "flying bomb" which can fly at 3,500 mph. It looks like the Israeli's might already have it.
The assassination of Francisco Franco and the invasion of Poland don’t have shit on the firestorm that’s going to engulf this planet when the shoe drops.
I look at it more like a cataclysmic collision of galaxies rather than hurricanes. No one will be spared, but those who make it out of the rubble will be able to start anew.
Whut?
Obama “needs” this conflict......it will happen.
Meanwhile out on the track there is a red flag.
The war is stopped while the Iranians regain their missile capability destroyed in the past weeks by parties unknown in a manner unknown
Dammit, I meant Archduke Francis Ferdinand.
Didn’t have enough coffee this morning, thanks Gator.
Interesting take. Under the table, he might be kicking them with provocations like the “missing and crashed” big ass stealth drone.
Forget it, you’re rolling. ;)
I sure hope not, but I need to remember to buy more sacks of rice and beans.
One thing collapse survivors like Fernando in Argentina and Selco in Bosnia agree on is they sure wish they had bought a LOT more food when it was cheap and available. That oversight forced both of them (and many thousands others) to risk their lives on shopping/foraging expeditions that during the most dangerous times, due to hunger.
Better to stay home and eat rice than to risk snipers or car jackings/robberies during the worst of it.
“The United States would obviously be blamed and we could possibly be the target of retaliation from Iran, striking our ships, striking our military bases,” Panetta told a forum in Washington on Friday.
[Sure it could...But any attack on our forces (naval, land-based or Air) would just bring about severe retaliatory action based upon ROE, and not necessarily at the direct orders from NCA]
Panetta privately outlined U.S. concerns in talks with Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak in Canada last month, including the impact a strike would have on the world economy.
[Whaaaaaaaa...Geesh, some countries need to soldier up and rub a little dirt on their owweees...Bunch of cowards]
Analysts say Tehran could retaliate by closing the Strait of Hormuz, the waterway where about 40 percent of all traded oil passes. Global meltdown
[We gamed this all out in the 80’s, and since then, the order of battle, and other assets and capabilities, have significantly improved for our side, not theirs...If we can get Obama out of office, I can guarantee the rhetoric from the ayatollas will decrease when a Republican sits in the big chair...It happened when Reagan took office...It’ll happen again...]
Just my opinion...I hope we can keep this from going down before then...
If they believe Obama won’t do anything significant in retaliation, they’ll make a move...If he somehow bamboozles the world into thinking he might...Well...So much the better, but I will not hold my breath...
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.