Obama told China: I can't stop Israel strike on Iran indefinitely

[Poll_Blind]

Nothing particularly earth-shattering but I thought it was interesting. Full story has more info, of course:

From Haaretz:

U.S. President Barack Obama has warned his Chinese counterpart that the United States would not be able to keep Israel from attacking Iranian nuclear installations for much longer, senior officials in Jerusalem told Haaretz.

They said Obama warned President Hu Jintao during the American's visit to Beijing a month ago as part of the U.S. attempt to convince the Chinese to support strict sanctions on Tehran if it does not accept Western proposals for its nuclear program.

The Israeli officials, who asked to remain anonymous due to the sensitivity of the matter, said the United States had informed Israel on Obama's meetings in Beijing on Iran. They said Obama made it clear to Hu that at some point the United States would no longer be able to prevent Israel from acting as it saw fit in response to the perceived Iranian threat. After the Beijing summit, the U.S. administration thought the Chinese had understood the message; Beijing agreed to join the condemnation of Iran by the International Atomic Energy Agency only a week after Obama's visit. But in the past two weeks the Chinese have maintained their hard stance regarding the West's wishes to impose sanctions on the Islamic Republic.

--SNIP--

The Israeli officials say the Americans now understand that the Chinese agreed to join the condemnation announcement only because Obama made a personal request to Hu, not as part of a policy change.

--SNIP--

China's actions are particularly problematic because China will take over the presidency of the UN Security Council in January. Western diplomats say China would have no choice but to join in sanctions if Russia agrees to support them, but China could delay discussions and postpone any decision until February, when France becomes council president.

PB

[Hannah Bell]

1. wtf?

[Bobbieo]

2. Can we ship Lieberman to Israel?

[Fumesucker]

3. Looking at the map, Israel will have to overfly Iraq, Turkey or Saudi Arabia

In order to get to Iran..

Which is the most likely to allow Israeli warplanes to cross their airspace?

[PCIntern]

5. Answer: All of them

None of them want to be within range of Iranian missles loaded with a warhead or three. They'll all protest loudly, wink quietly, and go to bed peacefully.

[arcadian]

7. I think you underestimate the Saudi's hatred of Israel.

[qazplm]

10. and you

might be underestimating Saudi Arabia's fear of Iran.

[arcadian]

13. Saudi arabia doesn't even recognize Israel.

They recognize Iran. Actually, of the two, the Saudis are the extremists.

[Fumesucker]

8. Eh, they're all in range of Israeli missiles, loaded with a warhead or three..

And there are no Iranian warheads..

Edited to add: And which of the two nations has a more aggressive record of attacking and invading their neighbors?

[daninthemoon]

9. I was wondering what happens if an errant missile hits our protectorate

Iraq, or even American forces there. Who will we aim our missiles at then? Also, what is the situation now that Iran has successfully fired those new missiles yesterday.

[Libertas1776]

4. Not be able...

or not be willing?

[walldude]

6. Goddammit the Iranian people are out there in force trying

to change their government. They are in a media blackout, they are getting beaten, arrested, hosed down. Give them a chance to fix things themselves.

[daninthemoon]

11. Can't. They are evil. We are good. Israel is good. It's ok if we kill them.

[Karmadillo]

12. Can't stop or won't stop?

nt

[roamer65]

14. The Saudis will allow Israeli overflights.

From experience, I have seen that Sunni-Shi'a hatred runs very deep.

[Nikki Stone1]

15. A major play against BRIC

.

[Duende azul]

16. So having additional troops in the neighbourhood in Afghanistan finally makes sense.

How sick is that?

But I'd take "Israeli officials, who asked to remain anonymous" with a grain of salt. Why do they leak this?
Did Obama really tell China that the US is not in control of their ally? Really? Wonder, what the Chinese think of that.
Or do these anonymous sources make shit up?

[14thColony]

17. The problem for the threatened Israeli airstrike is and always has been

that from a purely MILITARY standpoint, looking at unforgiving facts such as ranges versus payloads versus weapon types versus numbers of targets, what is being threatened is simply not within the capabilities of the Israeli Air Force. Sure their pilots are brave and well-trained, and their planners are imaginative and resourceful, no question. But the stark reality of the matter is that to effectively attack the hypothetical "Iranian nuclear weapons program" in any meaningful way, the IAF needs more strike aircraft, and far more importantly, WAY more air refuelers, EVEN if they do manage to work a deal to cut across someone else's airspace on the way there and back. All the bravery and wishful thinking in the world doesn't mean shit if your planes don't have the gas to make the pass. And without way more tankers, they don't.

So this is either all bluff and bluster and the Israelis and US hope and pray that the Chinese and the Iranians don't have even a Wikipedia-level understanding of IAF air capabilities, or a MILITARY success would not be the purpose of such a strike -- it would merely be the means to some other end.

[Johnny ramone]

19. I would say bluff.

But who knows ?

[sendero]

18. If Israel wants to go there..

... then let them. It is of no concern to the United States.

Our entire embroilment in the "war on terror" is about Israel, I'm tired of carrying their water.