Israel Can't Afford to Bluff

[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Eisenhower was a highly respected general. I think his assessment of the strategic implications was probably the right one.

It is real easy to sit here 55 years later and second guess. The cold war was a serious business. The Soviet Union was no joke. They starved over twenty million Ukranians to death.

They were a ally of Hitler during the invasion of Poland through to the end of the Battle of Britain. After the war the Soviet army was supposed to pull out of Eastern Europe and allow free elections.

It’s not like the Soviets were playing nice and if we slipped up they would cut us some slack. It was a different world back then, it was 1953 not 2008. If you want to analyze and understand historical events you sometimes need to put your twenty first century values, morals, predjudices aside for a moment and try to imagine how people at the time saw them.

When Harry truman left office he had the lowest approval ratings ever. People had wanted him to start world war three and he refused. Today we all say thank god he didn’t start world war three.

What can seem obviously right or wrong at any given time can seem the exact opposite fifty years later.

I wasn’t passing judgment, I was simply responding to your assertion that the US would be blamed even if they had no direct involvement in an attack on Iran.
[/quote]

The Iranians themselves have threatened to go postal on everyone if they get attacked. Either directly or through proxies, like Al Sadr, Hezballah or Hamas.

We Aren’t going to do sh*t to Iran. Reasons why.

  1. Strait of Hormuz- Sunburn missiles, 25% of the worlds oil goes through a 6 mile straight, lots of slow, flammable sitting duck tankers. You want to pay shipping insurance on a free for all? Borders Iranian mountains with 1000’s of shipping ports.

  2. 130000 troops in Iraq, supply chains, fragile truce currently

  3. Afghanistan, Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria, Mehdi Army,Quds force.

  4. Iranians ARE NOT Arabs (Weak ass fighters, besides Hezbollah) They ARE Persians with a long history of cleverness and craziness. Read up on the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam was the sane one.

  5. 3X the size of Iraq with up to date Chinese/Russian Weaponry. They are being supported by those two in a proxy war, sharing all technology silently.

  6. We only beat on dilapidated, broken down countries that we know can’t fight back. (think Iraq after 20 years of sanctions). Iran is No Iraq.

  7. Economy cannot take a true, sustained oil shock. They WILL CLOSE the strait, we will not be able to keep it open. You ready for $250 oil and $7-10 dollar gas?

So what about Israel? Odogg,you think they’ll strike Iran? If no one attacks Iran, and they get nukes, do you think that is a good idea? What should be done to prevent this?

America can be the one to do the deed and do the most damage, along with taking out the Iranian military so it can’t support the Iraq insurgency. It can also put the Iranian Kurds into a position where they can reclaim their land. Or it can leave it to the Israelis to do their best, which won’t be anywhere as comprehensive.

Here is the Israeli view.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/2212934/Israel-has-a-year-to-stop-Iran-bomb,-warns-ex-spy.html

A former head of Mossad has warned that Israel has 12 months in which to destroy Iran’s nuclear programme or risk coming under nuclear attack itself. He also hinted that Israel might have to act sooner if Barack Obama wins the US presidential election

Shabtai Shavit, an influential adviser to the Israeli parliament’s defence and foreign affairs committee, told The Sunday Telegraph that time was running out to prevent Iran’s leaders getting the bomb.

Mr Shavit, who retired from the Israeli intelligence agency in 1996, warned that he had no doubt Iran intended to use a nuclear weapon once it had the capability, and that Israel must conduct itself accordingly.

“The time that is left to be ready is getting shorter all the time,” he said in an interview.

Mr Shavit, 69, who was deputy director of Mossad when Israel bombed the Osirak nuclear facility in Iraq in 1981, added: “As an intelligence officer working with the worst-case scenario, I can tell you we should be prepared. We should do whatever necessary on the defensive side, on the offensive side, on the public opinion side for the West, in case sanctions don’t work. What’s left is a military action.”

The "worst-case scenario, he said, is that Iran may have a nuclear weapon within “somewhere around a year”.

As speculation grew that Israel was contemplating its own air strikes, Iran’s military said it might hit the Jewish state with missiles and stop Gulf oil exports if it came under attack. Israel “is completely within the range of the Islamic republic’s missiles,” said Mohammed Ali Jafari, head of the feared Revolutionary Guard. “Our missile power and capability are such that the Zionist regime cannot confront it.”

More than 40 per cent of all globally traded oil passes through the 35-mile-wide Strait of Hormuz, putting tankers entering or leaving the Gulf at risk from Iranian mines, rockets and artillery, and Mr Jafari’s comments were the clearest signal yet that Iran intends to use this leverage in the nuclear dispute.

Despite offering incentives, the West has failed to persuade Iran to stop enriching uranium. Israeli officials believe the diplomatic process is useless and have been pressing President Bush to launch air strikes before he leaves office on January 20 next year.

They apparently fear that the chances of winning American approval for an air attack will be drastically reduced if the Democratic nominee wins the election. Mr Obama advocates talks with the regime in Tehran rather than military action.

That view was echoed by Mr Shavit, who said: “If [Republican candidate John] McCain gets elected, he could really easily make a decision to go for it. If it’s Obama: no. My prediction is that he won’t go for it, at least not in his first term in the White House.”

He warned that while it would be preferable to have American support and participation in a strike on Iran, Israel will not be afraid to go it alone.

“When it comes to decisions that have to do with our national security and our own survival, at best we may update the Americans that we are intending or planning or going to do something. It’s not a precondition, [getting] an American agreement,” he said.

A very pertinent analysis overall, but I got a problem with the following:

[quote]Odogg wrote:
4) Iranians ARE NOT Arabs (Weak ass fighters, besides Hezbollah) They ARE Persians with a long history of cleverness and craziness. Read up on the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam was the sane one.[/quote]

In what world does defending yourself against an aggressor make you the insane one? The war Iraq started cost in excess of a million lives and you dare write that “Saddam was the sane one”?

Whatever the Iranians did in that period is because of Ba’athists attacking them.

[quote]lixy wrote:
A very pertinent analysis overall, but I got a problem with the following:

Odogg wrote:
4) Iranians ARE NOT Arabs (Weak ass fighters, besides Hezbollah) They ARE Persians with a long history of cleverness and craziness. Read up on the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam was the sane one.

In what world does defending yourself against an aggressor make you the insane one? The war Iraq started cost in excess of a million lives and you dare write that “Saddam was the sane one”?

Whatever the Iranians did in that period is because of Ba’athists attacking them.[/quote]

Sending their kids to clear minefields qualified them as insane. And evil.

[quote]lixy wrote:
A very pertinent analysis overall, but I got a problem with the following:

Odogg wrote:
4) Iranians ARE NOT Arabs (Weak ass fighters, besides Hezbollah) They ARE Persians with a long history of cleverness and craziness. Read up on the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam was the sane one.

In what world does defending yourself against an aggressor make you the insane one? The war Iraq started cost in excess of a million lives and you dare write that “Saddam was the sane one”?

Whatever the Iranians did in that period is because of Ba’athists attacking them.[/quote]

Yeah, the Iranians are so innocent…So the victim.

At the peril of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, here goes:

The U.N. has been using the U.S. military as henchmen and scapegoats since we signed on the dotted line. Ever notice the lack of ‘war’ since WWII? Vietnam? not a war. Korea? not a war… Iraq? of course not!

Read the ‘Authorization’ given to W by our Congress. No mention of the Constitution in there. But it mentions the UN Charter 23 times.

One U.N. secretary general (I forget which one) was quoted as saying “the U.S. will never make another military move without Russia’s involvement”. Most of the U.N. SG’s have been Russian Communists.

What does this have to do with Iran? During Clinton’s presidency, Russia drafted plans to build a pipeline from Iraq to Russia through Iran. Iran said no.

Connect the dots. We’re going to Iran.

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
At the peril of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, here goes:

The U.N. has been using the U.S. military as henchmen and scapegoats since we signed on the dotted line. Ever notice the lack of ‘war’ since WWII? Vietnam? not a war. Korea? not a war… Iraq? of course not!

Read the ‘Authorization’ given to W by our Congress. No mention of the Constitution in there. But it mentions the UN Charter 23 times.

One U.N. secretary general (I forget which one) was quoted as saying “the U.S. will never make another military move without Russia’s involvement”. Most of the U.N. SG’s have been Russian Communists.

What does this have to do with Iran? During Clinton’s presidency, Russia drafted plans to build a pipeline from Iraq to Russia through Iran. Iran said no.

Connect the dots. We’re going to Iran.[/quote]

“At the peril of sounding like a conspiracy theorist…” Yeah, that is conspiracy theory BS. And there has never been a Russian Secretary-General: Secretary-General of the United Nations - Wikipedia

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
JayPierce wrote:
At the peril of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, here goes:

The U.N. has been using the U.S. military as henchmen and scapegoats since we signed on the dotted line. Ever notice the lack of ‘war’ since WWII? Vietnam? not a war. Korea? not a war… Iraq? of course not!

Read the ‘Authorization’ given to W by our Congress. No mention of the Constitution in there. But it mentions the UN Charter 23 times.

One U.N. secretary general (I forget which one) was quoted as saying “the U.S. will never make another military move without Russia’s involvement”. Most of the U.N. SG’s have been Russian Communists.

What does this have to do with Iran? During Clinton’s presidency, Russia drafted plans to build a pipeline from Iraq to Russia through Iran. Iran said no.

Connect the dots. We’re going to Iran.

“At the peril of sounding like a conspiracy theorist…” Yeah, that is conspiracy theory BS. And there has never been a Russian Secretary-General: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Secretary-General[/quote]

I would love to hear what this guy considers a “conspiracy theory”.

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
At the peril of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, here goes:

The U.N. has been using the U.S. military as henchmen and scapegoats since we signed on the dotted line. Ever notice the lack of ‘war’ since WWII? Vietnam? not a war. Korea? not a war… Iraq? of course not!

Read the ‘Authorization’ given to W by our Congress. No mention of the Constitution in there. But it mentions the UN Charter 23 times.

One U.N. secretary general (I forget which one) was quoted as saying “the U.S. will never make another military move without Russia’s involvement”. Most of the U.N. SG’s have been Russian Communists.

What does this have to do with Iran? During Clinton’s presidency, Russia drafted plans to build a pipeline from Iraq to Russia through Iran. Iran said no.

Connect the dots. We’re going to Iran.[/quote]

War is the ultimate excuse to have a government. Who wouldn’t support the government if your country was being invaded? Until humanity can come up with a suitable substitute for war, as a means to justify the existence of a ruling class, we’ll have to have wars.

It’s currently hoped that environmentalism can replace war as ‘the great uniter’, the thing that empowers rulers. I doubt that this will work. Controlled wars (which are actually wars against one’s own population) are it for the foreseeable future.

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Yeah, that is conspiracy theory BS. And there has never been a Russian Secretary-General: Secretary-General of the United Nations - Wikipedia [/quote]

I should have worded that better. I meant communists who support Russia.

I find it alarming that you think this statement is far-fetched. Look at how many “U.N. Peacekeeping Missions” in which the U.S. has been the main participant. We are simply the U.N.'s thugs.

Tonight the Iranian Foreign Minister sealed the deal on the NBC nightly news. He said if Israel attacks Iran the Iranians will retaliate against America. He even smiled when he said it.

If America will suffer the retaliation for an Israeli action anyway. America has nothing to lose by being the one to do the attack in a much more comprehensive way than the Israelis ever could. Bush’s historical legacy could not be made any worse by taking out the Iranians, it could only be enhanced.

Also the Russians have refused to send anymore air defense systems to Iran or Syria. They don’t want their people to get caught in the middle of a war or see the credibility of their air defenses diminished any further. Besides even if the straight of Hormuz does not get closed the value of Russia’s oil exports will skyrocket.

Here is the interview:

In a latest development…

US admiral urges caution on Iran

[i]America’s top military officer has said opening up a third front in the Middle East through a strike on Iran would be “extremely stressful” for US forces.

Adm Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was commenting on the likelihood of US or Israeli military action over Iran’s nuclear programme.

Tensions have risen amid reports Israel may be planning a possible strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Iran denies its nuclear programme is anything other than peaceful.

It has been clear for some time that Adm Mullen does not want to attack Iran, but his latest remarks suggest that he is fighting hard behind the scenes for both the US and Israel to think carefully about the consequences of an attack before considering mounting it.

He said opening up a third front, after Iraq and Afghanistan, would be “extremely stressful, very challenging, with consequences that would be difficult to predict”.

In response to a question about an Israeli attack on Iran, rather than American action, Adm Mullen appeared to suggest that the US could not avoid becoming involved.

“My position with regard to the Iranian regime hasn’t changed. They remain a destabilising factor in the region,” he said.

“But I’m convinced that the solution still lies in using other elements of national power to change Iranian behaviour, including diplomatic, financial and international pressure.”

He called for dialogue between the US and Tehran.

Adm Mullen’s boss, US President George W Bush, has also been asked about recent speculation that there might be a military strike on Iran.

The president said all options were on the table but that military action would not be his first choice. His senior soldiers will be pleased to hear it.[/i]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
A very pertinent analysis overall, but I got a problem with the following:

Odogg wrote:
4) Iranians ARE NOT Arabs (Weak ass fighters, besides Hezbollah) They ARE Persians with a long history of cleverness and craziness. Read up on the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam was the sane one.

In what world does defending yourself against an aggressor make you the insane one? The war Iraq started cost in excess of a million lives and you dare write that “Saddam was the sane one”?

Whatever the Iranians did in that period is because of Ba’athists attacking them.

Sending their kids to clear minefields qualified them as insane. And evil.[/quote]

That was Ahmedinejad’s idea, btw - having the kids wrap themselves up in blankets and go rolling through the minefields.

[quote]lixy wrote:
In a latest development…

US admiral urges caution on Iran

[i]America’s top military officer has said opening up a third front in the Middle East through a strike on Iran would be “extremely stressful” for US forces.

Adm Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was commenting on the likelihood of US or Israeli military action over Iran’s nuclear programme.

Tensions have risen amid reports Israel may be planning a possible strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Iran denies its nuclear programme is anything other than peaceful.

It has been clear for some time that Adm Mullen does not want to attack Iran, but his latest remarks suggest that he is fighting hard behind the scenes for both the US and Israel to think carefully about the consequences of an attack before considering mounting it.

He said opening up a third front, after Iraq and Afghanistan, would be “extremely stressful, very challenging, with consequences that would be difficult to predict”.

In response to a question about an Israeli attack on Iran, rather than American action, Adm Mullen appeared to suggest that the US could not avoid becoming involved.

“My position with regard to the Iranian regime hasn’t changed. They remain a destabilising factor in the region,” he said.

“But I’m convinced that the solution still lies in using other elements of national power to change Iranian behaviour, including diplomatic, financial and international pressure.”

He called for dialogue between the US and Tehran.

Adm Mullen’s boss, US President George W Bush, has also been asked about recent speculation that there might be a military strike on Iran.

The president said all options were on the table but that military action would not be his first choice. His senior soldiers will be pleased to hear it.[/i]

[/quote]

Why do you care what the Shi’a do or what we do to them?

Yeah, Iran’s not on the border of Sweden, is it?

[quote]lixy wrote:
In a latest development…

US admiral urges caution on Iran

[i]America’s top military officer has said opening up a third front in the Middle East through a strike on Iran would be “extremely stressful” for US forces.

Adm Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was commenting on the likelihood of US or Israeli military action over Iran’s nuclear programme.

Tensions have risen amid reports Israel may be planning a possible strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Iran denies its nuclear programme is anything other than peaceful.

It has been clear for some time that Adm Mullen does not want to attack Iran, but his latest remarks suggest that he is fighting hard behind the scenes for both the US and Israel to think carefully about the consequences of an attack before considering mounting it.

He said opening up a third front, after Iraq and Afghanistan, would be “extremely stressful, very challenging, with consequences that would be difficult to predict”.

In response to a question about an Israeli attack on Iran, rather than American action, Adm Mullen appeared to suggest that the US could not avoid becoming involved.

“My position with regard to the Iranian regime hasn’t changed. They remain a destabilising factor in the region,” he said.

“But I’m convinced that the solution still lies in using other elements of national power to change Iranian behaviour, including diplomatic, financial and international pressure.”

He called for dialogue between the US and Tehran.

Adm Mullen’s boss, US President George W Bush, has also been asked about recent speculation that there might be a military strike on Iran.

The president said all options were on the table but that military action would not be his first choice. His senior soldiers will be pleased to hear it.[/i]

[/quote]

Funny, most of the sane voices (active duty military, Secretary Gates) think military action against Iran is a terrible idea.

Of course it’s a terrible idea.

We need to finish what we set out to do and then bring all our people home. If Israel attacks Iran and then Iran retaliates against us? We defend ourselves. But I disagree with being the first to strike, just because we’re going to get involved anyway.

But, the fact remains. We’re no longer in control.

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
…Funny, most of the sane voices (active duty military, Secretary Gates) think military action against Iran is a terrible idea.[/quote]

And most sane voices also think Iran getting nukes is a terrible idea…