Any military strike by Israel against Iran’s suspected nuclear bomb factories will have to go from Israel, over Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, then Kuwait, and finally into Iranian airspace. OR the Israeli bombers could fly over Jordan, refuel inside Iraq, and then directly into Iran. The reports are sketchy, and dubious, but not at all impractical.
Bear in mind, it was years ago that Israel had special F-16i fighter/bombers designed and built specifically for this mission. It’s a risky endeavor that would lead to a worldwide terrorist war, and massive regional war with worldwide economic devastation, but it’s also a cold, hard reality that the world has failed to deter Iran’s nuclear bomb program. Diplomacy has failed. Now we only have to wonder when the strike will be, and whether it will be the Americans or the Israelis or both who wage it?
Author of “Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War
Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War: Malensek, Scott: 9798864028674: Amazon.com: Books
It appears Israel is the only one to notice that time is running out. The only ones who take Ammadinnerjacket at his word to destroy Israel.
Better attack Iran while Dubya is President.
God forbid, if Obama gets elected, he will surly toss the Israeli state under his bus.
These rumors have been ongoing for years.
Let’s hope it’s true this time.
If Israel does it, they’ll do it on the best military terms-I’d guess a no moon period. Politically, yeah, it’d be better to do it during W’s admin (especially if they go it alone or w barebones support from US and others).
If before the election, the new moon periods are
July31/Aug1 (When’s Gen Petraeus give his presentation to Congress?)
or
Aug30/Aug31 (Barack Obama in Iraq at time of strike…oh that’d be bad)
or
Sept 28/29 (Ramadan?)
or
Oct28/29
If after US election/before US Innauguration, the new periods are
Nov27/28
or
Dec27/28 (Christian holidays, Islamic New Year, etc)
There’s been talk of an Israeli election this year, but not sure about that. They’re not due till 2010, but it’s not uncommon to hold elections early. If there is an election there, it’d likely influence when a strike would happen. Not sure about Muslim or Iranian influences that would make a strike better on one day than another. Obviously don’t wanna do it on a big Muslim holiday. Also, typically tides would have an effect for placing ships in there for support, but the Gulf is an unusual tidal spot getting several tides a day sometimes and not in sync w rest of the planet always.
“It’s a risky endeavor that would lead to a worldwide terrorist war, and massive regional war with worldwide economic devastation”
Not necessarily. Remember, the World is in so much trouble because it has allowed the problem to go unconfronted. Taking action then, it would seem, should be the best course of action to defuse the situation. Of course, that would also require that the Israel, and hopefully the US, have a very firm after action plan to deal with any reprisals. Without that, I would agree that it would lead to more trouble. It depends how clear their thinking is and how firm their resolve.
Great points Yonason. I’m not quite clear on what you mean by after action plan though. I mean…where’s it stop?
Israel strikes Iran
Iran already pledged to attack Israel and US in response to such an attack
After US is attacked….what kind of after action plan are you thinking would be best?
Your headline really had me confused, Scott. I could not imagine, under any circumstances, that a pan-Arab country would allow Israel to train on it’s soil, and still manage to have congenial relationships with other Muslim countries. Dang, they have to quietly assent to aid the US in the background, and then put on a public face that denies being a US “puppet” for their citizens… i.e. Pakistan and now Iraq. I see no circumstances where they could afford allowing Israel that much latitude.
But I see from the story that they say using the airspace, and landing at US bases. All, however, deny it. So who knows.
Frankly, INRE Iran, I don’t see Israel or the US going after them. I do, however, see their own citizens doing it (with external aid). The Iranian economy is in the toilet, and Ahmadinejad’s popularity is swirling the edges of the toilet bowl for public opinion. France backed out of oil development there in the past day or two… the 3rd oil investor to do so.The missile launches, IMHO, are primarily to jack up oil prices to rise to protect their oil revenue, which is declining. Especially since the add’l oil investment/drilling has backed off.But frankly, I just don’t see the world leaping willy-nilly into conflict with Iran. What they could do to the cargo traffic alone, starting from the Persian Gulf, could set the world into an economic tail spin. But I do see finding ways to have it fall from within. The times and citizenry – quite western in the youth, who are rapidly the majority – are ripe for internal change.Just another perspective…. but only time will tell what actually transpires, eh?I put the above on the “doomsday” clock thread, where it was more appropriate….
Mike typed re: Possible Israeli air strikes on Iran:
Let’s hope it’s true this time.
Good old Mike. Consistent as always.
Never yet found a battle he wasn’t happy to have others fight.
Ya know, a few years back (I think it was late 05), I saw an article where 40,000 english-speaking suicide bombers registered in Iran specifically to attack the US. I’m sure it was as exaggerated as their photoshop bits, but the point here is that if/when it hits the fan…we will all be targets in this war, and lest we forget America is currently at war with Al Queda, and Democrats tell us we should be on alert for attacks here at home. That means at malls, grocery stores, libraries, schools, and so forth. Don’t think for a minute-don’t even DARE to imagine that this is some conspiracy from 12 “neocon” people or anything of the sort. The threat is extremely real. Even if one doesn’t believe the Iranian threat, the threat that Israel will attack Iran is real, and subsequently Iran’s promise to attack the US in retaliation bears real concern given that it has more terrorist forces than conventional forces.
Dunno if you’re addressing my comments INRE your statement, “don’t even DARE to imagine this is some conspiracy from 12 ….”, Scott. I mostly certainly believe in the threat of Iran, and even that Israel is capable of launching a preemptive attack.
But I also think any preemptive attack will be carefully weighed on repercussions that come with the action. Certainly Israel risks massive loss of life if they do not take out all launching points with any action. And that compounds if Iran does happen to have even one small nuke or bioweapon to load onto even a single remaining missile. Taking on Iran is not on a par with bombing Syria’s nuke plant.
Then add Iran’s ability to disrupt shipping traffic, which makes those repercussions global. Oil supplies are definitely severely cut, costs will be sky high even by today’s standards. Lots of “what ifs” here.
In the meantime, Israel’s been on a negotiating binge…. Syria and Hamas. Certainly with both of those countries’ tight relationships with Iran, a preemptive strike would undo all they are attempting to accomplish now. And either one may be happy to rise to the occasion to back a damaged Iran, and launch from other countries in retaliation.
So my gut says nope on Israel being that aggressive… at least at this moment.
MH, I was addressing sir Arthurstone’s suggestion that Mike or others were exaggerating a threat.
I do think Israel is getting desperate.
Diplomacy has consistently proven to fail re Iran
the UN has failed (again)
US is at risk of going from a hawk to uber dove in terms of leadership
US is pulling out of Iraq/reducing deterrent in the region
Iran’s program gets closer and closer to full capacity (40bombs a month est)
I think the math is as cold as a November rain in Cleveland:
number of Israelis killed by conventional Iranian retaliatory attacks
vs
number of Israelis killed by Iranian nuclear attacks delievered either by ballistic missile or terrorist (the latter being as deniable and stealthy as a B2 bomber strike)
vs
number of Israelis killed by full scale nuclear war from a region that is thrown into a nuclear arms race by a nuclear-armed Iran.
What I don’t know is what will be the final straw that makes their pm say, “dammit, ok. We go on [such and such] day.”
Remember, very few people ever want/look forward to a war (especially one like this), but at some point someone has to do the math and realize the numbers are shifting towards another Holocaust.
That’s “Arthur” for you. Secure in the knowledge that his paint by numbers stall in Pioneer Square Seattle is safe enough from the evils of this world to lure gullible art nabobs into his lair and part them from whatever spare cash they have left as a result of Bush low tax policies.
Let’s see how he feels when Obama is President, the terrorists finally succeed in toppling the Space Needle and no one has any money to spend after paying their taxes.
Ya know Mike, I’m not gonna razz on the guy. Think about it this way…the same people who want to pretend that “mushroom cloud” rhetoric from the Bush Admin was mere rhetoric, or who claim that the war w Al Queda wasn’t driven by the US policy of containing Saddam, or who believe that terror warnings are political not real…well, how often do we see the bastions of so-called peaceful opposition to the war on terror based in LA, NYC, San Fran, Portland, etc.? I myself find it absolutely amazing that the very centers of opposition to facing up to threats from around the world irregardless of consequence to one’s own political party takes a back seat to the real fact that America’s most prime targets…are also those same bastions calling for peace, appeasement, or denial of threats. As if it’s somehow impossible for an LNG tanker to go into liberal Boston w a limpet mine attached, or a car loaded w explosives to cross into Portland (see also Millenium Plot). The list goes on, and yet the denial exists not only in the face of reality, but because of it; because the reality is that 21st cent Democrats only oppose for opposition’s sake rather pursue American interests. Nah, easier to have BDS.
You’re right of course. When President Obama takes office and inherits a recession (exactly as President Bush did) we’ll get to see how RAISING taxes helps a spending-based economy more than cutting them.
Ultimately, the fact is there are no more Democrats. Just Republicans and people seeking power through opposition for opposition’s sake.
I’m curious to see Sen Obama explain in the debates why he’d meet w Ahmadinejad and not Petraeus when formulating Iraq strategy.
Arthur?
Scott! Let me get this straight, we are supposed to allow Iran to have and use a nuke, because we are afraid of what they might do if we preemptory take out their nukes. Why don’t you just surrender now and save the trouble. Iran with a nuke will be a world nightmare that no one will wake up from.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding your post, what side are you arguing from? you have me confused.
Not sure what post you’re misunderstanding, Jainphx. I’m just asking, “what comes next?”
(post5)
Israel strikes Iran
Iran already pledged to attack Israel and US in response to such an attack
After US is attacked….what kind of “after action plan” are you thinking would be best?
What kind of after action you ask? Lets put it this way, any one more afraid of after action then nuclear action by Iran, is in my opinion, paving the way for disaster. Take out the very severe threat and the small ones will be handled in a timely manner. The bully usually backs down when you fight back.
I agree jainphx. Only thing I’d add is that we should also be prepared for the bully not to back down (particularly when so many prefer to deny the threat just to further their political beliefs and/or aspirations).