Israel, U.S. Divided Over Timing of Potential Military Strike Against Iran
By Nicole Gaouette and Jonathan Ferziger - Fri Feb 03 16:16:54 GMT 2012
The U.S. and Israel are publicly disagreeing over timing for a potential attack on Iran to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Theres a growing concern -- more than a concern -- that the Israelis, in order to protect themselves, might launch a strike without approval, warning or even foreknowledge, Aaron David Miller, a former Mideast peace negotiator in the Clinton administration, said today.
The U.S. and Israel have a significant analytic difference over estimates of how close Iran is to shielding its nuclear program from attack, Miller said today. The differing views were underscored by public comments yesterday by senior Israeli and U.S. defense officials.
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Israel must consider an operation before Iran reaches an immunity zone, referring to Irans goal of protecting its uranium enrichment and other nuclear operations by moving them to deep underground facilities such as one at Fordo, near the holy city of Qom.
MORE...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-02/israel-defense-chief-barak-says-world-understands-need-to-act-against-iran.html
Boombaby
(139 posts)If Israel wants to attack Iran, Israel should attack Iran. And we should have absolutely nothing to do with the operation. Simple.
chimpymustgo
(12,774 posts)still_one
(91,965 posts)happyslug
(14,779 posts)I do NOT see Turkey giving permission, even if they plan to denounce it afterward (This is what Kenya did in the Entebba Uganda Raid, Israeli C-130s landed and refueled in Kenya before heading for Uganda, the raid was done and the passenger rescued, then Kenya "denounced" the raid i.e. Kenya approved of the Raid, but for diplomatic reasons denounced it). As I said I do NOT see Turkey doing the same, if jets were detected the Turks would try to intercept them AND tell Iran the Jets were going to Iran.
The Israelis may have better luck with Saudi Arabia, the House of Saud may like such an attack, and thus agree to leave the IDF (Israeli Defense Force) to fly over Arabia and hit Iran, leaving the House of Saud the ability to denounce the IDF for the attack and violation of their airspace. The Downside is twofold, the US run the Saudi Arabia Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS, through now called airborne early warning and control, AEW&C) so the US will know of the attack at the same time as the House of Saud. Thus, while the House of Saud may approve of the attack, the US may not for the simple reason the US will get blamed for everyone knows who run those AWACS and it is the US.
The Second reason the House of Saud may not cooperate is simple, Iran has missiles that can hit the oil fields and export terminals for Saudi Arabian oil. The oil is concentrated just across from the Persian Gulf from Iran in an area of Arabia that is Shiite, like Iran, not Sunni. like the house of Saud. This is true of most of the Persian Gulf Nations, the majority of the people are Shiite, but the leadership, our allies, are all Sunni.
More on AWACS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_Early_Warning_and_Control
The final route, the most direct is over and through Iraq (Yes I known Jordan is also on the same route, but the US is tighter with Jordan then with Saudi Arabia and Iraq, thus not a real additional factor). Even today, after the US pull out of Iraq, the US still controls the air space over Iraq. How much this is tied in with the US operated AWACS from Saudi Arabia is unknown, but even if there is no connection (something I doubt) the US will get the blame for that is the perception in the Middle East (thus the extent of the interaction is unimportant).
Thus to fly over Iraq Israel must get US permission, if the US does not grant permission, the US can shoot down any plane Israeli sends over Iraq or Arabia. Even if the US did not the US would get blamed anyway and suffer the Consequences (including revolts in Iraq, Arabia and most of the Persian Gulf Nations, supported or lead by missile attacks on those same nations from Iran and an attack on Shipping at the Gulf of Hormuz etc).
Furthermore, that would shut down 20% of all oil exports. Israel gets its oil from that same source (i.e. first shipped to the US and then to Israel). The issue would become will the US continue to ship oil to Israel when China and India would be buying up all the oil they could beg, borrow or steal? Europe will be in the same price fight, while Canada is a "Captive" market (i.e. must ship to the US), the other two Western Hemisphere oil exporters (Mexico and Venezuela) are NOT.
Right now Mexico and Venezuela export their oil to the US in ocean going barges, but with the Straits of Hormuz blocked, the ocean going tankers used in the Persian Gulf would be Free" to switch to Mexico and Venezuela for shipments to Europe, Japan, India and China.
Thus the US would suffer a severe internal oil shortage, will the US government make that shortage worse by shipping domestic oil to Israel, or tell Israel they were on they own as far as oil is concern (i.e. the US would refuse to honor its commitment to supply oil to Israel)? I lean to the US telling Israel they were on they own.
Now this would cause a big political headache in the US no matter which party controls the White House (and more for the GOP, for GOP is more dependent on suburban and rural voters then are the Democrats and as such run a greater risk of turning off voters that are the most oil dependent people in the US, Suburban and Rural residents, whole giving US oil to Israel). The Democrats are NOT much better, but given the larger support for Democrats in Central Cities easier for Democrats to give up the oil).
Given the above I do NOT see an attack on Iran. The Costs to the US of such an attack is to high. I suspect Iran fells as I do, thus a lot of noise but no real action. At the same time Iran must keep its options open, thus the talk of how it would close down the Persian Gulf. Such a close down would force the US to attack Iran, so no plan to do so exist UNLESS the US or Israel attacks Iran first.
Now, Washington and Israel may do such an attack, dumber things have happen, but so far it has been mostly talk and showmanship (For example last weeks movement of a US carrier into the Persian Gulf, no need for the Carrier in the Persian Gulf to attack Iran, the Carrier can attack Iran from the Arabian Sea (the sea the Persian Gulf empties into). No attack on that Carrier by Iranian Speed Boats, which is all you need to do such an attack in the Persian Gulf). Thus all the ACTIONS of the US and Iran do NOT indicate any attack on one by the other (i.e. move the Carrier out of the Persian Gulf, but park it just outside the Gulf, perfect place to launch an attack on Iran while giving the Carrier room to maneuver if it has to to avoid Iranian speed boats, or even missiles hidden on commercial ships going in and out of the Gulf).
As far as an Iranian attack, if a Carrier was in the Gulf, run speed boats up to it to show that the Carrier can be attack and Order all Iranian Commercial Ships to report where the Carrier are and even aim the Commercial ships at the Carrier or its escorts, to force the Carrier and its escorts to get out of the way of the Commercial ship. I NOT heard of either thing occurring, thus Iran is avoiding confrontation. Thus support for my position that there is no plan by either side to attack, it is all talk.
Submariner
(12,485 posts)this summer so that gasoline prices sky rocket in time to defeat President Obama. I expect Bibi will be back on the tube with Hannity again soon to pose more threats. Just what we need, another f*cking war.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)It makes sense, too. Eeeessshhhh.
I hear a lot of Dems rooting for Gingrich to get the Republican nomination on the thoery that he'll be easier to beat. Probably true, but it's a risky strategy. There are a number of scenarios where the Republicans and their wealthy backers may be able to damage Obama sufficiently to get the Republican nominee elected. I really don't like the sound of President Newt. Anyway, a fuel price explosion would be one of those scenarios, and Bibi might be the guy to make it happen.
still_one
(91,965 posts)international community not ready to jump on the band wagon, but they will cause at least a two front war against them. Iran won't just lay back, and Lebanon will move also. In addition, since the wisdom of our foreign policy toppled sadam hussein, the Shia rule in Iraq will align themselves with Iran
This will be a mess far worse than the wmd lie we used to invade Iraq, and will cause a world wide depression
I also do not believe it will happen
It is neither in Israel's interests nor Iran's
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)still_one
(91,965 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)We are talking about people being killed here - and you are interested in placing bets?
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)a events might happen. I suspect you knew that and you are being intentionally nasty.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Monitoring it in that way seems ghastly to me.
No nastiness intended - I'm just giving you my opinion on this.
Whether you placed a bet or no.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)- most likely by the State of Israel - by the end of the year. If you check Asia Week - they have been publishing during the past few months several well researched articles about the possibility of an attack on Iran by the end of the year. Intrade offers a barometer of how the markets are interpreting these observations... Intrade is a tool whereby one can inform ones self of how market forces view how possible this might be. It is indeed truly ghastly that an attack might happen - an attack with likely catastrophic consequences. The reality of what might actually happen is what is truly ghastly and morbid. I suppose betting on it would be pretty cynical too. I would never place such a bet.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)That seems to be what your "Intrade" reference indicates.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)Many observers think that it could likely happen. An Iranian friend of mine who just left yesterday who has never previously predicted an attack - is now convinced it is going to happen. He is someone who follows every report very closely. We will hope that they are wrong as he certainly does. There are reasons to believe it might not happen. The Pentagon does not want it. The CIA does not want it. I doubt the Obama Administration wants it. Those who are hoping for a financial recovery of the global economy certainly do not want it. But there are other reasons to believe it is increasingly possible. If the Intrade numbesr start climbing above 50% - I would be even more concerned.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Wonder where the "smart money" would have been.
stockholmer
(3,751 posts)they most assuredly are.
Generals gathered in their masses
Just like witches at black masses
Evil minds that plot destruction
Sorcerers of death's construction
In the fields the bodies burning
As the war machine keeps turning
Death and hatred to mankind
Poisoning their brainwashed minds
Oh lord yeah!
Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor
Time will tell on their power minds
Making war just for fun
Treating people just like pawns in chess
Wait 'til their judgement day comes
Yeah!
mactime
(202 posts)So the decision has already been made that there will be a military strike, it is just the timing that still needs to be worked out. Am I reading that correctly?
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)from the article in the OP:
-------------------------------------------
Panetta stressed today that the U.S. and Israel are in agreement on the need to do what is necessary to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.
Weve made very clear that they cannot, they cannot develop a nuclear weapon, Panetta told troops at Ramstein Air Base in Germany.
Strike Premature
The chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, has said it is premature to resort to military force because sanctions are starting to have an impact on Iran. In a Jan. 26 interview with National Journal, Dempsey said he delivered a similar message of caution to Israels top leadership during a visit to the Jewish state in early January.
U.S. intelligence agencies think Iran is developing capabilities to produce nuclear weapons should it choose to do so, James Clapper, the U.S. director of national intelligence, told the Senate Intelligence Committee on Jan. 31.
We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons, he said.
-------------------------------------------
I don't even see how we can do sanctions given that statement by Clapper. Sanctions negatively impact civilians, who should not be punished for some act their government may or may not be approaching.
But I don't know this issue in depth, I'd need to really understand the Iranian nuclear program. I can see a need for sanctions if the signs truly point to a weapons program, though like I said, Clapper's statement doesn't seem to support that.
edited to add:
-------------------------------------------
from http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-57370973-503543/iran-helping-al-qaeda-war-hysteria-builds/
"The report is particularly disconcerting as it follows closely on the heels of America's intelligence chief James Clapper warning U.S. lawmakers that Iran is, "more willing to conduct an attack in the United States" as sanctions hit its economy and talk of Israel attacking its military and nuclear installations gains volume.
-------------------------------------------
So there's Clapper again, now saying that the sanctions themselves are increasing Iran's militancy towards the U.S., and of course the war hawks use this as a further reason to launch a pre-emptive strike, circular escalation, rather than de-escalate the sanctions that are stirring things up.
I dunno, but I don't like it at all. Israel is armed to the teeth conventionally and with nukes, the real way to deal with all of this is with less military, not more, and a Palestinian state wouldn't hurt either.
sarcasmo
(23,968 posts)FarCenter
(19,429 posts)The next morning, the futures markets will explode, and by 10 am the gas stations will have changed their prices.
Nobody is going to sell their inventory for less than they think they can get in two weeks.
nanabugg
(2,198 posts)We should be divided over more than just timing. I guess the Likud government is trying to defeat Pres. Obama any way they can.
HeiressofBickworth
(2,682 posts)I'm torn between "never" and "when hell freezes over".
Gringostan
(127 posts)This is insanity but I believe the decision has already been made; hence the announcement to end of the Afghan war.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)If they were actually going to do it, they wouldn't be threatening to do it.
Gringostan
(127 posts)They threatened Iraq; even moved troops into the theater, all the while professing negotiations.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Are we talking about Israel or the US?