Panetta lets stand report Israel may attack Iran

[tabatha]

Associated Press | Posted: Thursday, February 2, 2012 1:22 pm

Panetta was asked by reporters to comment on a Washington Post opinion column by David Ignatius that said Panetta believes there is a "strong likelihood" that Israel will attack in April, May or June. Ignatius did not say who told him this.

Asked whether he disputes the report, Panetta said, "No, I'm just not commenting."

He added, "What I think and what I view, I consider that to be an area that belongs to me and nobody else."

He noted that Israel has stated publicly that it is considering military action against Iran. He said the U.S. has "indicated our concerns."


Read more: http://missoulian.com/news/world/europe/panetta-lets-stand-report-israel-may-attack-iran/article_fb9105d0-f7ff-5dd9-b7d7-cbfdccdc5e71.html#ixzz1lGJUoyR6

Oh shit!

[madrchsod]

1. let`s see......

iran and iraq are good friends,syria is in civil war,and turkey is just a tad pissed off at israel. the only way for israel to attack is to violate several countries airspace.
of course an attack would be a declaration of war against iran. is president obama willing to go back into the middle east with a weaken military? would china and other south east asian countries want their natural gas supplies disrupted?


i think israel is a bit nervous about the withdraw of the us military in the middle east and the us focus now on china and the rest of south east asia.

[tabatha]

3. Obama has strongly expressed disapproval of Israel's plans.

[SylviaD]

32. Two questions for you.

1) Do you really think Netanyahu cares what Obama expresses to him?

2) Do you really think Obama disapproves? After he has ratcheted up or instigated wars in Afghanistan & Libya?

[Scootaloo]

35. In all honesty, yes, Netanyahu cares

The US has made it clear - even as early as the Bush administration, if you can believe that - that it will not under any circumstance lend support to an Israeli preemptive attack on Iran. Israel has been fought to a standstill by neighborhood militia groups in recent years. And that was with explicit US political and material support. The odds of Netanyahu putting his country's ass on the line against a nation with an actual military - much less one heavily invested in air defense - without US participation are slim to none.

[Iliyah]

2. I have a feeling that Israel

strongly wants to attack Iran, well at least the far right, including their prime minister who has been iching to. Of course they would want the full support of the US.

Overall, religion is a good thing for mankind but when men/women arbitrary take apart the true meaning of it, well there you have it, total destruction.

[sarcasmo]

57. Religion is the insanity that has us in this mess.

[limpyhobbler]

4. This is the definition of insanity. nt

[Lawlbringer]

5. If we had handled

the Cuban missile crisis in the same way (if reports of Iran's nuclear ambitions are true, but that's up to debate) none of us would be alive now.

[jakeXT]

6. Wait and see

Build up, and pray for war

DEBKA predictably spins all these developments - not independently confirmed - into Obama's "resolve to attack Iran's nuclear facilities in the course of 2012", which is absolute nonsense. This may mirror (hysterical) wishful thinking by the Benjamin Netanyahu government in Israel, but has nothing to do with the Obama administration's strategy, which essentially is to impose a "roll over and die" form of "diplomacy" on Iran (sanctions/oil embargo + Pentagon build up in the American Gulf) as a means of extracting an Iranian capitulation in the nuclear dossier.

...

One Ronen Bergman writes that "after speaking with many senior Israeli leaders and chiefs of military and the intelligence, I have come to believe that Israel will indeed strike Iran in 2012". Gary Sick conclusively debunked this nonsense [1] stressing how "his conclusion is at odds with virtually everything he produces as evidence".

The only good thing among all this weaponized orgy is that Tehran and Washington are still talking - sort of - using the proverbial back channels; in Baghdad (via both ambassadors); via Turkey (with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan as middleman); and in Vienna, the headquarters of the International Atomic Energy Agency (via diplomats). There's a five-month window for good sense to prevail until July 1 - when the US/European Union oil embargo on Iran kicks in.

And then there's the resurfacing of "Austere Challenge 12" - the massive joint Israel-US war games involving thousands of US soldiers and testing of a number of Israeli and US missile defense systems.

....
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NB03Ak04.html

[tabatha]

7. atimes?

However, I did think that Iran was open to talks. They are ongoing now?

[Iliyah]

8. The talks are ongoing

even with the terrorist from other countries but when you have a determined mindset which are the far crazy right folks than any little thing can set them off, and boom there you have it, WW3.

[penndragon69]

9. Isreal stands alone.

Or at least that's how it should be.
If they want to attack, go for it but don't expect America
to come to their aid when the Sheit hits the fan.

The Fascist regime running Israel wants war but expects others to do
the dirty work for them.....no more, we need to let them get THEIR nose bloodied
and then maybe they will regain their senses and make peace with their neighbors.

[MicaelS]

10. Co-worker who spends time on military forums

With active duty personnel, says that those personnel state that if Obama loses the election, the US will attack Iran within 6 months if not sooner. Some of them don't like the fact Obama won't let them go now.

[tabatha]

11. Do they know that the Pentagon has run war games, and in no scenario does the US win.

That info can be found on the web.

Otherwise, Bush would have bombed Iran.

[MicaelS]

13. Don't know will have to ask him n/t

[AverageJoe90]

36. Link please?

[tabatha]

40. here

http://newworldorderreport.com/Default.aspx?tabid=266&ID=4957

[2ndAmForComputers]

55. "Some of them don't like the fact Obama won't let them go now."

Fucking psychos.

Tell that fucker if you want to get shot, shoot yourself and leave us non-psychos alone.

[Behind the Aegis]

12. This crap is so fucking old!

Seriously, keep throwing shit, hoping something will stick. Fun for all.

At least he is better than most the other military "psychics", he's giving himself a large window. Good for him.

[leveymg]

14. Israel doesn't do anything we don't want them to.

We have a thousand points of leverage over the Israelis, including the threat (never publicly expressed) of shooting down half their Air Force before it reaches Iran, if that's what we really wanted to do. Of course, they could shoot down half of ours in the process. But, who's counting. The fact that we sold or gave Israel ALL the equipment and ordinance they would use to attack Iran is infrequently mentioned in this context.

More psyops. Hope Iran keeps its head. It must be hard.

[tabatha]

16. You are wrong.

Obama will not bomb Iran.

Netanyahu does not like Obama.

[leveymg]

18. As I've said, the more you insist that there will be no war, the more I worry about it.

This story is about Israel doing the dirty work, at the first round, anyway. Netanyahu may not like Obama, compared to Republican alternatives, but that doesn't mean that Barack will put enough real pressure on Bibi to prevent escalation into a major regional crisis into which Washington will feel impelled to intervene.

Build up to U.S. intervention is all by little steps. Like a death by a thousand cuts.

[arely staircase]

27. you have that backwards. nt

[AverageJoe90]

37. Usually that would be very true.........

But the truth is, they may just be finally slipping out of our control for once.

[leveymg]

38. Plausibly deniable, but not very plausible.

[tabatha]

43. Please watch Martin Bashir's program from today around the 15 minute mark.

[leveymg]

46. This one?

Bob Baer on Iranian and Israeli intentions. Interesting, knowledgeable, and worth considering:

http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/will-a-showdown-occur-between-israel-and-iran/6d7rvyl

[tabatha]

48. Yes.

[leveymg]

49. What do you take to be Baer's primary point?

[tabatha]

50. It counters a lot of points made on DU.

These are the points that Baer made:

Israel could/would do it on their own. (Some say that Israel does not do anything without US permission.)

The US is opposed to any action by Israel. That is why they are trying sanctions first. (Some like Northerner have stated that the sanctions are a precursor to war; they are not, they are a way to try to prevent war.)

Iran has to test a bomb before they can use it - they won't do that because of the international outcry.

These are points that Engel made:

There are lots in Israel who do not want an attack.


Hence it underscores point I have repeated: the US will NOT attack Iran.

[leveymg]

51. I'd like to see him cite a recent example of a major act carried out by Israel the US really

couldn't live with. Of course, they don't consult with the US State Department in advance of every assassination, pipeline bombing, and settlement expansion. And, obviously, these sorts of things complicate our relations with other states and in some cases are unwelcome.

But, in the larger sense, it is hard to think of any major action taken by Israel against Iran or Syria in recent times that hasn't been signed off on in Washington, at least in principle, that doesn't have at least the tacit support of some significant American elites or part of government. I'd be curious, can you think of any? Bet you Bob couldn't identify an example, either.

[tabatha]

52. Baer said that Israel went ahead with the Syrian action with the US.

[leveymg]

53. Please clarify.

What do you mean by that? How is that something Israel did against actual U.S. intentions?

[tabatha]

54. Please do your own work given the info already supplied.

http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/will-a-showdown-occur-between-israel-and-iran/6d7rvyl

From 3:00 to 3:26 - replay it as many times as it takes to comprehend. In fact, transcribe the comments.

[RobertEarl]

15. Occupy Question

What if Occupy took a stance on this latest threat to peace?
Would the millions of people against war via Occupy make any difference?
Call it Occupying Peace?

[tabatha]

17. If in Israel.

[RobertEarl]

20. In Israel?

Do the people of Isreal want peace or more war?
They know the US is their protector, right?
That we won't let Israel be destroyed, right?

[tabatha]

21. There are many in Israel who do not think like their govt.

[RobertEarl]

22. Think?

How does their government think?
That bombing Iran is smart?
And the government doesn't listen to the people?
Or are the people for more war?

[tabatha]

24. A bunch of non-sequitur questions

Israelis Fight Iran War Push
Nov 3, 2011 1:36 AM EDT

Netanyahu is rushing to attack Iran, but Israeli military and intelligence are stepping up to oppose him—exactly the kind of pushback the U.S. needed before the Iraq War, says Peter Beinart.

Every time I get depressed about politics in Israel, I try to remember one salient fact: their political system still sometimes functions better than ours.

A case in point is the remarkable series of events that have taken place in recent months regarding an Israeli attack on Iran. In January, Meir Dagan, the recently retired head of the Mossad, Israel’s external spy agency, warned that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak were plotting an attack against Iran, which Dagan called “the stupidest idea I’ve ever heard.” With him and a couple of other powerful security officials gone, he warned, the reckless civilians now had a free hand. Dagan, however, was too pessimistic. On Friday, Israel’s most prominent columnist, Nahum Barnea, wrote a front-page column in the mass-market tabloid Yediot Ahronot suggesting that the new crop of officials running Israel’s military and intelligence services also were pushing back hard against war.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/11/03/israelis-impressive-fight-against-iraq-war-push.html

[Mnpaul]

29. You would probably get your house raided on bogus charges

Like the anti-war protestors in Mn and Chicago. A year and a half later with no charges but they are still working on it.

[Purveyor]

19. Nothing the current Israeli gov't would love more than the defeat of President Obama and the means

to get there is a war with Iran and $6+ gasoline/tanking economy.

Just watch...

[secondwind]

23. Israel can attack Iran, but it does not have the air power

to totally wipe out the nuclear sites.

The U.S. will be left with two alternatives, we will either help Israel, or learn to live with a nuclear Iran.

[Duppers]

34. we live with a nuclear N. Korean, China, Russia

Why didn't we go to war to prevent their having nukes?

[markpkessinger]

25. One HOPES the administration has said to Israel . . .

. . . that if they should choose to attack Iran, they will do so without any support from the U.S. But somehow, I doubt it has had the stones to say that.

[tabatha]

26. They sent an envoy to Israel to say that.

[markpkessinger]

28. Do we know for a fact the envoy said that?

The administration doesn't doesn't usually give specific details of diplomatic conversations. Saying they sent an envoy to "convey their concerns" is not the same thing as unequivocally saying they will receive no American support whatsoever in a war against Iran. Given this administration's somewhat troubled history of hair-splitting prior statements after the fact, I've learned to be very cautious in interpreting its official statements.

[tabatha]

42. Martin Bashir just discussed this on his program.

Interesting.

[Voice for Peace]

30. Is Panetta speaking about this as a deterrent to Israel?

as a 'headsup' to Iran?

what?

By the way someone upthread mentioned Occupy
and YES on that..
war is about making money for very rich greedy people
at the cost of innocent life.

Occupy can inform the public about ANYthing of urgent importance.

An informed public will become an empowered public.

[unkachuck]

31. "No, I'm just not commenting."

....of course, you wouldn't want to telegraph our intentions while we're in an open, overt/covert war in Iran....we wouldn't want the American people to get a preview of the next new war before showtime....

....shut down one war, hurry up and start a new one....if Russia and China had any balls, they would publicly announce that any attack on Iran would be consider as an attack on Russia and China, just like we back Israel....

...."indicated our concerns."....c'mon leon, we all know Israel wouldn't fart without our permission....

[jimlup]

33. Let's game this out... what would be Iran's response?

Would they attempt to block the Straights of Hormuz? Would they accelerate (or actually initiate) their nuclear weapons program? Or would their actions be entirely covert? All this predicated on the hypothesized Israeli attack.

[Bruce Wayne]

41. First thing is, they'd've scatter-sited all their assets by now

Second off, they might play the victim card, "document" their lack of threat, and then turn all the Middle East and half of Europe against Israel. The more Israel saber-rattles, the more justified Iran seems in pursuing nukes. This could be the one issue that unifies Iran and Saudi Arabia in a common front. I doubt Saudi Arabia could withstand a prolonged conflict with Israel, so this could potentially spin out into a seriously destablized Saudi Arabia--with attendant consequences for its level of oil production. If that's the case, then Iran become an even more important oil provider on the global market... especially toward picking up Arabia's slack (and more diplomatic weight) in providing oil to the Asian tiger economies.

If Israelis really wants to fuck over America, its best friend in the world, they can't make a bigger move than attacking Iran.

[jimlup]

45. But I'm talking hypothetically beyond the "saber-rattling"

I mean sure they will play the victim card - but they already are. The sanctions are enough for them to do this.

I suppose that yes - after being bombed they will then almost certainly pursue nuclear weapons in earnest. But beyond that I think it depends on if Israel uses nuclear weapons on their attack of Iran's nuclear sites or not. After I thought about this - it occurred to me that an initial "preemptive strike" by Israel may well involve nuclear weapons. If it does then what does Iran do?

[Douglas Carpenter]

39. Intrade is speculating a 39% chance of an attack by Israel and/or the U.S. by the end of 2012

http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/common/c_cd.jsp?conDetailID=750356&z=1328271622854

I would encourage people to follow Asia Times for regular unbiased and dispassionate coverage on the Iran question.

http://atimes.com/


It is certainly looking very possible that an attack might happen by the end of the year 2012.

[tabatha]

44. This was discussed on MARTIN BASHIR's program today.

After about 15 minutes - for any rerun watchers.

[neverforget]

47. I'm worried that even if we say no to Israel and they do it anyway, we'd be

drawn into it. My thinking is this: Israel attacks Iran, Iran lashes out and attacks our bases in Kuwait and Qatar, unleashes the Shiite militias in Iraq and Hezbollah in Lebanon, attacks shipping in the Persian Gulf and refineries and pipelines in the Persian Gulf such as Ras Tanura. They can do a lot with missiles and unconventional warfare.

How will the so-called "Arab street" react to an Israeli attack? What will happen to the world economy if oil skyrockets?

[sarcasmo]

56. Sounds like the car is going to be parked in the garage a lot more than usual

this year.

[Boombaby]

58. If the Israelis see Iran as a clear and immediate danger to them, they should attack

And we should have NOTHING to do with the operation whatsoever!!!