Skip to comments.Decision By Netanyahu, Barak To Strike Iran Is Almost Final -- Israel TV
Posted on 08/11/2012 6:30:11 AM PDT by Fennie
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak have "almost finally" decided on an Israeli strike at Iran's nuclear facilities this fall, and a final decision will be taken "soon", Israel's main TV news broadcast reported on Friday evening.
Channel 2 News, the country's leading news program, devoted much of its Friday night broadcast to the issue, detailing the pros and cons that, it said, have taken Netanyahu and Barak to the brink of approving an Israeli military attack despite opposition from the Obama administration and from many Israeli security chiefs.
Critically, the station's diplomatic correspondent Udi Segal said, Israel does not believe that the US will take military action as Iran closes in on the bomb.
The US, the TV report said, has not provided Israel with details of an attack plan. President Obama has not promised to attack Iran if all else fails. Conditions cited by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta for an American attack do not calm Israeli concerns. And Obama has a record of seeking UN and Arab League approval before action. All these factors, in Jerusalem's mind, underline the growing conviction of Netanyahu and Barak that Israel will have to tackle Iran alone, the TV report said.
Israel's leaders have also noted that president George W. Bush vowed repeatedly that North Korea would not be allowed to attain a nuclear weapons capability -- a vow that proved empty.
Obama does not want to intervene militarily before the presidential elections in November, and it is doubtful that he would act afterwards, runs the Israeli assessment, the TV report said. Obama may believe that the US can live with a nuclear Iran, but Israel cannot, the report quoted those in "Netanyahu's circle" as saying.
As for presidential challenger Mitt Romney, he takes a more forceful position, but would probably not have the domestic support necessary to act in the first year of his presidency, if elected, and after that it would be too late.
With the successful overthrow of Egypt's Mubarak and the current civil war in Syria, those two substantial opponents of Israel have been temporarily marginalized and do not pose a significant threat or provide a roadblock to Israel's target, Iran. The timing for Israel is indeed favorable.............
>>Furthermore, it would doom Obama’s chances by stripping him of the support of the militant peace movement and possibly the Nobel Peace prize.
I disagree. To the Anti-Israel factions, he will be “attempting to restore order to the region by cleaning up a mess started by the Jewish people occupying Palestine.”
To the Pro-Israel faction, he will be “supporting Israel in a war that has been a long time coming.”
This will be Obama’s excuse to cancel elections.
Time to inventory your preps and make sure you haven’t forgotten anything.
I put no stock in these announcements, whether formal or leaked. They are, themselves, all tactics in the diplomatic contest. War may come. It may come this evening, but the event will have no actual relationship to these things.
If the kenyan thinks he is going to lose in November then he will lquite possibly go for war against Iran before then. Israel, at this point probably does not want to do it before the election if the Israelis think Romney will win because or the likelihood that war will get the kenyan reelected. Obama has consistently backed and promoted Sunni takeovers of Moslem countries and probably does not want to see Shiite Iran gain hegemony. He may tell Israel to “do it” and Israel may tell him “later.”
I don’t care what Israel does, but I don’t want the USA involved in another war in the ME.
We need to get out now and start taking care of the USA and rebuilding our finances and our economy. Can’t do it when we are spending more on war than we make. It wouldn’t bother me if they all go at it, and turn the area into glass. It’s been a costly thorn in our side and that would dis-involve us. We better be prepared for $10 gas.
-—”Make sure Iran knows theyre coming.
Maybe they’re going to use a neutron bomb and Iran doesn’t stand a chance anyway?
To the extent that Iran has any real defensive capability, they have “stuff” but not much depth so far as I can tell and it all depends on Russian support to keep running, the public pronouncements have the interesting effect of rattling the Persian’s cage so to speak. If they don’t get jumpy and move a few things around it means they can’t or don’t actually have anything important. They aren’t smart enough to do fake blocking moves so every thing they move is a give-away.
But I’ve always said the easy way to take them out of nuclear production is to destroy their energy grid which, incidentally, would take the whole bunch back to 1920. Nuclear enrichment takes large qtys or both electricity and water-——blasting either one will have them skipping laundry days for a long time. It’s not exactly necessary to try to hit the best protected facility they have, which is also the most likely place they have air defenses.
Just another one of these.
“Their blood be upon their own heads”...
One reason why they wait until now is because they probably now have very real targets, more advanced weaponry, and all other options are truly exhausted. To the first issue particularly, if they hit facilities that are 3 years from completion then the Iranians would only be 3 years closer to rebuilding them. Destroying them just before they go online sets them back to square one. And like I said, the honorable thing to do is to wait until there are no more options. This attack won’t be pretty, or easy, and will cause Israel a lot of international condemnation and scorn (what else is new, I know) but at least they could honestly say that they tried every other avenue and this was a last resort. Worse, Israel will probably take damage and casualties from an attack by Hezbullah in Lebanon and hamas in Gaza. Fortunately Syria is distracted.
Somehow, Turkey is ticked at Israel,too. Israel doesn’t need that. While not a superpower by any means, Turks are pretty scrappy. And I don’t believe Israel will use nukes in a preemptive strike. I don’t really believe they will use them unless they are nuked. and a conventional war with Iran could be very costly. Iran is a pretty big country. all good reasons try everything else first,IMHO
Barry be about to “Wag the Dog.”
The so called world community is a rotted hull of empty words where the Jews and Israelis will have their backs to the wall once again and forced to act, only to be condemned by the very parties who give a sigh of relief after the deed is done. Why does a threatened population of 5.6 million Jews have to take out the planet's dirty laundry once again! The Israelis neutralized Saddam's Iraq in 1981, Syria's Assad in 2007 and now, they have to do this again? All Alone??????
America is going to get hit, too.
Leftists, jihadists, open border invaders, diversity racists...gun confiscation, martial law...Russia?..it’s going to get as ugly as Dear Reader, his treasonous media, and his warty, moldy czars in America.
I pray that is not so, but it all looks pretty bad and the GOP won’t protect the country. The military and Homeland inSecurity is naming the Tea Party, Christians, constitutionalists and other conseratives as the domestic terrorists theatening global progress and rule.
If America gets out from under these freaks without suffering terrible violence, it will be a miracle.
The casual tone of many of the the "Attack Iran" conversations on this site are extremely disturbing, at least to me. The military option seems to me to be nowhere near "on the table" for many reasons. To begin with, Iran is larger than Western Europe, making it a much better missile target (for thousands of missiles) than an airplane objective, especially since Israel has no bases within range and would have to refuel over hostile airspace. Even if all the potential targets were known, it would be impossible to prevent immediate missile retaliation against Israel. Iran took a million KIA against Iraq and would not be passive in the face of even an overwhelming attack. In addition, many of the primary "nuclear" targets are underground and doubtless hardened to the point where a pinpoint nuclear attack would probably be the only option. The idea of a limited strike against nuclear plant targets only seems also a non-starter to me.
Any military action against Iran would have to be at the very least, on the scale of a Gulf War III. I sincerely hope Obama is not entertaining any thoughts of an October Surprise in Iran. I'm fairly certain the Israelis aren't.
There is also the usually unspoken issue of the Shiite mindset. Their theology calls for an Armageddon, in which the Earth is to be wiped clean by fire, so that Allah The All Wise can remake it as a Shiite Earthly Paradise, with no bad Muslims (i.e., non-Shiites,) and certainly no Infidels. Defeat does not matter. After all their highest holy day celebrates the loss of the Battle of Karbala and they march in the streets inflicting terrible wounds on themselves until the parade route runs with blood.
You ain't dealing with Presbyterian People from Peoria.
Thanks KB. The Iranians plan to strike first, but it will be against the US; the diplomatic and other manuevers going on right now are being done to hamstring our other enemies so they don’t dogpile on when the mullaholes try to shut off the oil and launch street level terror attacks here on US soil.
I think Benji is seriously pushing Zero’s buttons. Zero’s gonna’ have to buy himself a whole drawer of new undies!