Panetta reported to have said Israel will probably attack Iran in the Spring!

[dameocrat67]

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/02/panetta-believes-israel-could-strike-iran-this-spring/


06:29 PM ET
Share
Comments (1,635 comments)
Permalink

Panetta believes Israel could strike Iran this spring

By Barbara Starr

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has come to the conclusion there is a growing likelihood Israel could attack Iran sometime this spring in an effort to destroy its suspected nuclear weapons program, according to a senior administration official.

The official declined to be identified due to the sensitive nature of the information.

Panetta's views were first reported by the Washington Post's David Ignatius, who wrote Panetta "believes there is strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June - before Iran enters what Israelis described as a 'zone of immunity' to commence building a nuclear bomb."

Asked by reporters in Brussels, where Panetta is attending NATO meetings, the defense secretary refused to comment. But Panetta told reporters the U.S. has "indicated our concerns" to Israel, according to the Agence France Presse news agency..............


Scary stuff!

[cppuddy]

1. they do so and they are on their own.

If they do so they are on their own, us should stay out of it. Let israel deal with the results; alone.

[JSnuffy]

5. They are our allies and we should support them...

... instead of letting them just get squashed.

Agreements matter... Contracts matter... Treaties matter and honor matters...

[dameocrat67]

6. they arent getting squashed

they squashing everyone else, including America itself. we have no treaties with them. This is just lobby money!

[Owlet]

7. and common sense doesn't matter?

What possible good outcome do you foresee if the US participates in an attack on Iran?

[ronnie624]

9. Naked aggression is a violation of international law.

If the U.S. and Israel attack Iran, it will be they who are in violation of peace treaties.

[kentuck]

2. Would you be inclined to attack first...

if a country threatened you in such a way??

[dameocrat67]

3. No. I wouldnt.

Last edited Fri Feb 3, 2012, 09:55 AM - Edit history (2)

It isnt threatening israel that bad. Netenyahu is just engaging in dangerous posturing. One, there is no evidence they are developing a nuke, and even if there were, they let Pakistan have nukes. Pakistans fundies are MORE of a threat to the US. There is no saber rattling against Pakistan. We americans tolerated Russian nukes for years.

I dont sympathize with them. America literally did not act as dumb about Russian nukes as Israelis are now. They arent more special than other countries. This will drive up gas prices to 20 or more dollars a gallon. What about Americans who need their cars to get around. Rural and suburban americans will be hurt terribly. Thank god, John Kennedy didnt think like the Israelis.

[ronnie624]

8. The one who attacks is the aggressor.

Israel has a history of aggression. Iran doesn't.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. Iran very much does have a history of aggression.

It uses proxy groups of terrorists and militants rather than conventional forces, but in many ways that's worse rather than better, especially in the context of nuclear weapons.

[dameocrat67]

11. hezbollah were defending the lebonese people from israeli colonization of litani valley

do you seriously think no one should fight israel when it swipes stuff that is not theirs.

hezbollah bothered no-one after israelis retreated, but the israeli right wing cant handle losing a fight even when they are clearly wrong, so it holds a grudge forever. Again, pakinstan is more of a threat with reguards to terrorist getting nukes, yet no saber rattling against them. hezbollah would be stupid to nuke israel, since it is so small they would nuke themselves too. israel was never attacked for no common sense reason. it was only over their invasion of lebanon, several years ago.

this war is happening because of pure egotism, or pure paranoia, not because of a real threat. gosh ill bet all those megachurch christian zionist in the car dependent suburbs will appreciate not being able to feed their families because gas prices are through the roof.

[ronnie624]

12. A couple of duds fired into the desert

is worse than an invasion that results in the decimation of civil society and the deaths of thousands?

Utter nonsense.

And I'm skeptical of your ability to produce evidence that ties the Iranian government to terrorist attacks against Israel.

[dameocrat67]

13. your right

and lets not forget israel itself used proxies to kill that scientist in iran, not to mention several palestinian leaders. it also used british and american passports to do these things.

the good news is, that ill bet when those gas prices shoot up china will get Sheldon Adelson Casino, and defund the bugger, and other israeli right wingers.

[Douglas Carpenter]

14. Intrade predicts +8% chance by 31 Mar--19% chance by 30 Jun--25% by 30 Sep--39%chance by 31 Dec 2012

http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventId=84328

I frankly doubt that Israel alone has adequate air power to significantly degrade Iran's nuclear program. Of course these attacks cannot be carried out without crossing Jordanian, Saudi and other Gulf State air space. I don't believe that Jordan, Saudi or any Arab state could politically afford to publicly support these attacks and to publicly admit that they have granted Israel permission to use their air space.

It would seem that without aggressive American support these attacks could not significantly degrade Iran's nuclear program. Even then any military success at a significant downgrade would be doubtful given Iran's use of deep earth tunnels and multiple sites. However, even if Israel does initiate these attacks alone - I would fully expect Iran to retaliate against American interest in the Gulf - which of course could create a pretext for American intervention.

If these attacks happen in the spring - oil prices will skyrocket into the stratosphere and thus stall the economy and create another financial meltdown. – This would accompany a deeply awkward political position it would place the President. An attack on Iran this spring or early summer would grant an overwhelming electoral advantage to the Republican candidate resulting in a GOP general election sweep in November.