Israel Will Strike

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

US launches drones and planes from Nimitz class carrier.

Iran launches a few dozens super sonic anti ship missiles against carrier group and declares than any and all tankers passing through the straight of Hormuz will be sunk.

While a decimated carrier fleet limps to the next harbor not within reach of Iranian weapons, oil prices are approaching 400$ a barrel.

[/quote]

I have a question sir. What are US carriers doing within a 1000 miles of the Gulf? Why aren’t they in the Indian Ocean way out of Iranian missile range? And, do you know anything at all about modern warfare?[/quote]

Because that is too far away to effectively project power.

But, even if they could do that over that distance, the Straight of Hormuz would still be where it was and, being 1000 miles away, could hardly stop Iran from sinking any oil tanker at will.[/quote]

Why not? Other than aircraft refeuling what possible difference would it make where the carrier is? My scenario is that any platform that pops its head up and launches a missile at the US Fifth Fleet gets obliterated.

"A central concept in modern naval warfare is battlespace: a zone around a naval force within which a commander is confident of detecting, tracking, engaging and destroying threats before they pose a danger…The open sea provides the most favorable battlespace for a surface fleet. The presence of land and the topography of an area compress the battlespace, limit the opportunities to maneuver, make it easier for an enemy to predict the location of the fleet, and make the detection of enemy forces more difficult.

A standard formation provides a number of layers of defence, designed to give maximum protection to the fleet’s high value units (HVUs) or main body. Furthest out are the picket ships, Combat Air Patrol (CAP) craft and early warning aircraft (AEW). These units operate at 200 nautical miles (370 km) or more out from the main body. The units of the outer screen operate between 12 and 25 nautical miles (22 and 46 km) from the main body. The inner screen is within 10 nautical miles (19 km) of the HVUs."

82

Here is an interesting take on it:

83

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Good points mufasa. But it seems a very amateurish way to leak something to confuse the enemy. Something that the Iranians believe they found themselves would carry a lot more weight than a “leak” by the U.S. Defense Secretary to the media. The period mentioned coincides with the ending of a window of opportunity when Iran will apparently move an “unknown proportion of (its) uranium enrichment assets to the highly protected Fordow enrichment plant.”
[/quote]
Are you saying that you think an attack could come sooner, and this was only meant to give a false sense of security?

84

Unlikely. I think the Obama administration is trying to hamstring Israel.

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/02/07/obamas-anti-israel-sell-out-continues/

85

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Unlikely. I think the Obama administration is trying to hamstring Israel.

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/02/07/obamas-anti-israel-sell-out-continues/[/quote]

Again, doubtful SM.

There is a LOT that we (and this author) DON’T know. I simply don’t believe that Panetta’s announcement was an “accident” and/or some attempt to “sabatoge” Isreal.

Mufasa

86

Neither I nor the author of that article used the word “sabotage.” And I agree there is a lot we don’t know. But I think after pulling out of joint exercises and “leaking” this information the Obama administration - at the very least, is attempting to forestall an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. That is my opinion from the limited information available.

87

Thought Michael Rubin has a nice detailed article on what it would take for Israel to be successful against Iran.

“Can Israel Strike Iran?”

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/02/07/israel-strike-iran/

snippet:

"Bret Stephens at the Wall Street Journal has a column today asking whether Israel can bomb Iran. He writes:

Put simply, an Israeli strike on Iran would not just be a larger-scale reprise of the attacks that took out Iraq?s nuclear reactor in 1981 and Syria?s in 2007. On the contrary: If it goes well it would look somewhat like the Six-Day War of 1967, and if it goes poorly like the Yom Kippur War of 1973. Nobody should think we?re talking about a cakewalk.

While many proponents of a military strike draw parallels to Israel?s strike against the Iraqi reactor in 1981, or its attack on the Syrian nuclear facility in 2007, Stephens is correct to note that the Iranian situation is far different, but he doesn?t go far enough: Even if Israeli pilots managed to fly into Iran with surprise, they will not be able to fly out with surprise once they drop their ordnance. This means that, even before Israeli planes can strike at Iranian nuclear facilities, they would have to strike enemy airfields, surface-to-air missile batteries, command and control centers, and radars. Multiple planes would then strike at the same target to better ensure success. In short, this could mean more than 1,000 sorties. Certainly, Israel has submarines and unmanned drones, but these alone will not suffice…"

88

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Unlikely. I think the Obama administration is trying to hamstring Israel.

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/02/07/obamas-anti-israel-sell-out-continues/[/quote]

Wouldn’t surprise me and it won’t surprise me if Israel tells obama to suck a dick. They fucking hate him over there. If the opportunity presents itself, or say we get tangled up with the Syrian situation, I will not be a bit surprised if Israel lets the bombs fly.

89

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Unlikely. I think the Obama administration is trying to hamstring Israel.

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/02/07/obamas-anti-israel-sell-out-continues/[/quote]

Again, doubtful SM.

There is a LOT that we (and this author) DON’T know. I simply don’t believe that Panetta’s announcement was an “accident” and/or some attempt to “sabatoge” Isreal.

Mufasa[/quote]

Israel has been long complaining that obama has been hamstringing them, so that is actually nothing new…

90

How about we tell the Russians and Chinese, we’re cool with Iran having nuclear weapons…

but pretty soon they’ll be popping up in Taiwan, The Phillipines and Georgia.

92

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
How about we tell the Russians and Chinese, we’re cool with Iran having nuclear weapons…

but pretty soon they’ll be popping up in Taiwan, The Phillipines and Georgia.[/quote]

Not a bad idea.

93

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Neither I nor the author of that article used the word “sabotage.” And I agree there is a lot we don’t know. But I think after pulling out of joint exercises and “leaking” this information the Obama administration - at the very least, is attempting to forestall an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. That is my opinion from the limited information available.[/quote]

I’m not really going to argue semantics, but the way I read it, “sabotage” and “hamstring” were synonyms. Could you better explain what you meant? Also, I notice by your diction you seem to assume the worst of the administration, I guess I’m not sure how starting from that position can lead to a “true” understanding of what they are doing/trying to do. You sound more like the “Obama is a enemy of America” type of poster. Maybe I’m mis-reading you though.

94

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Unlikely. I think the Obama administration is trying to hamstring Israel.

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/02/07/obamas-anti-israel-sell-out-continues/[/quote]

Again, doubtful SM.

There is a LOT that we (and this author) DON’T know. I simply don’t believe that Panetta’s announcement was an “accident” and/or some attempt to “sabatoge” Isreal.

Mufasa[/quote]

Agreed

95

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

I’m not really going to argue semantics, but the way I read it, “sabotage” and “hamstring” were synonyms.

[/quote]

Okay, but by hamstring - I meant delay/postpone/prevent.

I think - for whatever reasons - that the Obama administration doesn’t want Israel to launch a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities at the moment. The cancelled joint exercises, the “leak” and Obama’s clear statements:

'In a television interview, Obama said he did not believe Tehran had the “intentions or capabilities” to attack the United States, playing down the threats from Tehran and saying he wanted a diplomatic end to the nuclear standoff.

“Any kind of additional military activity inside the Gulf is disruptive and has a big effect on us. It could have a big effect on oil prices. We’ve still got troops in Afghanistan, which borders Iran. And so our preferred solution here is diplomatic,” Obama said.

His comments echoed concerns expressed by earlier by Iran’s neighbor Turkey that an attack on Iran would be disastrous.

“My number one priority continues to be the security of the United States, but also the security of Israel, and we are going to make sure that we work in lockstep as we proceed to try to solve this, hopefully diplomatically,” he told NBC.

[quote]

Also, I notice by your diction you seem to assume the worst of the administration, I guess I’m not sure how starting from that position can lead to a “true” understanding of what they are doing/trying to do. You sound more like the “Obama is a enemy of America” type of poster. Maybe I’m mis-reading you though. [/quote]

I didn’t say anything over-the-top about Obama. I’m giving my opinion of what is going on.

96

what do you guys think about this?

97

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
‘I have a premonition that will not leave me. As it goes with Israel so will it go with all of us. Should Israel perish the holocaust will be upon us.’ - Eric Hoffer, 1968[/quote]

What a bunch of bullshit. I don’t want to sound insensitive here, but the U.S. will get along just fine without Israel. We did pretty fucking well when there was no Israel pre-1948. There is no correlation between enduring American prosperity and a continued, unwavering alliance/protection of Israel.[/quote]

You’ve got it wrong. I’ll explain it for you. What he is doing is using Israel as an analogy. Because of what happened in the Second World War - and because of Britain’s(and America’s) abandonment of Israel and the Jewish people - he is saying that if an enormous moral choice confronts us - such as supporting intervention in Sudan to prevent mass genocide or supporting Israel against the same sort of threat - he is saying that if we don’t side with decency then we will lose our own decency. And that he believes that siding with decency is the only hope for all of us. My personal opinion is that no one has ever supported Israel and that they don’t need any support. They have survived on their own resources and continue to do so. We need them as much, perhaps more than they need us.[/quote]

That’s a completely disingenuous argument on his part then. We’ve been faced with the choice between decency before and when the choice is between decency and what’s best for the U.S., we go with what’s best for the U.S., or at least what we think is best. Look at Gitmo/torture. That may have been important and necessary in the terror war, but that isn’t what I’d call “decent”. The decent thing to do here may be to stand by Israel, but the bottom line is that this is Israel’s fight and I don’t believe in some “today Israel, tomorrow the world” scenario. At some point in time a democracy is going to have to stand on its own merit. That goes for Israel AND the Muslim world. If democracy is going to flourish there, it has to be without our forcing it upon them and without trying to preserve its one beacon in the area at a growing detriment to our OWN democracy.

98

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I don’t think it’s true to state “those regimes are at war with us already.” There are certain elements within each of the countries I mentioned that are working against [/quote]

The bomb that blew my “up armored” hummer about 50 yards across a field was designed, made, and manufactured by the Iranian government. It was detonated by terrorists funded and trained if not in Iran, then by Iranians.

My situation was hardly unique.

If that’s not “at war with us already” I don’t know what the fuck it is.

I hope the Israelis decide an small air raid is not possible without US help and just nukes the fuck out of Iran due to lack of options.[/quote]

I said that some regimes were at war with us and some weren’t. The part of my quote that you neglected to include makes clear that I didn’t necessarily include Iran in the category of regimes that weren’t at war with us.

Sorry to hear about your war experience. But the fact remains that our soldiers were in Iraq by choice and our soldiers in Afghanistan may be in the wrong country due in large part in intelligence failures on the U.S.’ part regarding Pakistan. And when we went to war on terror we declared not only on the cells directly responsible for 9/11, but all others like it, and rightly so. We took on that challenge, so if Iranians as terror cells or Iran as a country is at war with us, so be it. We’ve been fighting that war in some capacity for more than ten years. But I just don’t think that supporting Israel in this particular action, either vocally or literally, is something that will ultimately improve our chances for success against Iranian recruitment efforts, diplomatic efforts of our own with peripheral countries or chances for establishing rapport with govts in the area that will help actively fight terrorism. It certainly carries with it the implicit chance of sparking some sort of reaction in the Strait of Hormuz area that could endanger oil prices and force a much larger showdown that could end up with the U.S. stretched so thin that we can’t possibly maintain security in Afghanistan, continue covert operations inside of Pakistan on a regular basis and fight a war in Iran/Iraq at the same time. Especially if China and Russia remain decidedly neutral at best.

100

"US President Barack Obama, by asserting Sunday, Feb. 5, he doesn’t think Israel has made a decision on whether to attack Iran, indicated he preferred to keep Israel back from military action and set aside as a strategic reserve, while at the same time using the broad presumption of Jerusalem’s assault plans to intimidate Iran into opting for diplomatic talks on its nuclear program…President Obama is doing his best to keep Israel on the sidelines of the Iran controversy too, while he continues to angle for nuclear dialogue.

He was supported in this course by the veteran ex-diplomat Thomas R. Pickering who wrote in the New York Times on Feb. 2 that US relations with Iran remind him of the old Afghan adage: “If you deal in camels, make sure the doors are high” ? meaning that to strike a deal, both President Obama and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei would have to make concessions. Obama’s latest words indicate he is willing; Khamenei shows the opposite tendency."

http://israelstreams.com/i.html?http://debka.com/article/21714/?