Report: 3 Gulf states agree to IAF overflights en route to Iran

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"Three Arab states in the Persian Gulf would be willing to allow the Israel Air force to enter their airspace in order to reach Iran in case of an attack on its nuclear facilities, the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Siyasa reported on Sunday.

According to the report, a diplomat from one of the gulf states visiting Washington on Saturday said the three states, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates, have told the United States that they would not object to Israel using their airspace, despite their fear of an Iranian response.

Al-Siyasa further reported that NATO leaders are urging Turkey to open its airspace for an Attack on Iran as well and to also open its airports and borders in case of a ground attack.

According to a British diplomat who spoke to an Al-Siyasa correspondent, Turkey will not repeat the mistake it made in 2003, when it refused to open its airspace to U.S. Air Force overflights en route to attacking Iraq."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/830309.html

[Dover]

1. Is Haaretz considered an acceptable news source for LBN?

It has always seemed to have a strong bias.

[cali]

5. Yes, it is.

And btw, it's a fairly liberal newspaper.

[ohio2007]

13. If talking points fit the hot topic of the day then yes.

The real story is how those three Sunni countries will respond to this "zionist accusation"

[Trajan]

55. I recognize the J Post as slanted ....

Haaretz is quite balanced, and rarely stoops to pure nationalistic hubris ....

I trust Haaretz ....

[wakeme2008]

2. I do not know what IDIOTS wrote this piece BUT

DUHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[maddezmom]

3. we have military bases in all 3 countries

maybe they mean we can launch attacks from there? :shrug:

[wakeme2008]

4. But how is Israel planes going to get to any of those countries with

out flying through Jordan/Saudi/Syria etc

[maddezmom]

6. ah, good point

you're correct this makes no sense unless it's our planes doing the bombing. :hide:

[FreeStateDemocrat]

7. Via the flight deck of a US carrier. Plane will tricked out with Israli pilot and markings.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. Which seems to do away with the need for flying over any country (n/t)

[ohio2007]

12. wrong answer.

Israel doesn't own carrier based jets.

[ohio2007]

11. ever hear of spray paint ?

I'll leave that statement open for discussion.

[MGD]

35. I doubt flying over Syria will be much of a problem. 10-15 minutes of afterburner and you're in Iraq

refueling might be a problem though.

[Sterling]

50. Fly around them?

Yes they can do that, especially if they are only going to bases closer to the actual targets and attacking later. However we will not allow Israel to do this, we will do it ourselves before we let that happen.

[Marie26]

30. We do, Israel doesn't. nt

[FarCenter]

16. The more likely route is Jordan / Iraq

The more likely route is to overfly the puppet state of Jordan; add drop tanks, refuel, and arm on the ground at the US airbases in Iraq; and proceed on to Iran from there.

This avoids the need to carry maximum loads from Israel, and it avoids night tanker refueling over Iraq.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

17. In that case...

...why wouldn't we just do the damn bombing ourselves?

[FarCenter]

18. Plausible deniability

We would, of course, deny that any of this happened.

Better to let Israel, who has been directly threatened by Iran, take the heat for the attack.

Whether it would work would depend on a number of factors, such as whether there were accidents, etc. Even then, some activity could be explained as emergency landings of Israeli aircraft on the return flight after being damaged over Iran, etc.

[Zynx]

19. That wouldn't fly. Iraqis went nuts for their proposed flag looking too "Jew"

They're suprisingly well informed of whatever Israel does. Us making the Iraqi government tolerate an overflight would be a disaster in two regards:

1. The Iraqis would tell the Iranians its coming, because the Iraqi government is pro-Iran.
2. The Iraqi government would either order us out of the country or collapse.

[The Stranger]

61. That really isn't very accurate.

The imperialist flag that was handed the Iraqis had none of their traditional colors. It was, well, an imperialist flag for a collaboratist government.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

27. Better?!?

If Israel attacks Iran, the entire Middle East will explode. I think that Israel would like very much for us to handle this so they don't have to.

[Sterling]

51. Yes you are right, they are making this noise publicly to let

everyone know, if we don't do it, they will. Bottom line is, this is happening.

[arikara]

37. Maybe they are going to go around

and sneak up on them from behind.

[daleo]

40. I don't know if they have aircraft with the range to do that

Although that was my first thought too. I think even the direct route is pretty difficult, as far as fuel/range goes.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. Why was Turkey refusing its airspace to the USA a 'mistake'?

It seems more and more a sensible decision.

[ohio2007]

10. Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates will become targets themselves

either by al Queda or some covert Iranian cells.


...just saying, keep an eye on what proxies of the 'infidels crusaders' jihadi's go after.


I'll wait for how al Jazeera spins this story link out of Israel ;)

[Marie26]

38. Cheney is in Oman right now.

Sort of an interesting coincidence, isn't it?

Cheney Arrives in Persian Gulf for Talks

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) - Vice President Dick Cheney landed in the U.S.-allied Arab monarchy of Oman on Sunday and went directly to talks with its foreign minister, Omani government officials said.

A U.S. embassy spokesman in Oman declined to detail Cheney's plans or the focus of his visit to the sparsely populated oil-producing state, which allows the United States use of four air bases. But an Omani government official said Cheney was to discuss regional security issues, including the U.S. standoff with Iran over its nuclear program. The official, in the capital Muscat, spoke on condition of anonymity because he was unauthorized to speak to the press.

Oman sits across the strategically important Strait of Hormuz from Iran, through which two-fifths of the world's oil passes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6439730,00.html

Cheney's up to something.

[Trajan]

56. Ah .... Cheney visits the land of Democracy ....

Oman .....

Err .... wait: .... Oman IS a democracy ... right ? .... I mean: open elections and fair treatment of their women folk, and an open culture where religious pluralism is promoted and condoned .... right ?

Oh .... damn ... Not ANOTHER nation that needs 'correction' ....

Time for the Princling to get out his magical codpiece and fly another glorious mission !

[lovuian]

14. World War is what we are talking about people here

this is serious

God help us

[ohio2007]

21. Middle East "Cold War" between rival ideologies or religious sects

is what we are really talking about here.

imo, we are currently backing the wrong Arabian horse.

[The Stranger]

62. Please, do explain the comment about the "Arabian horse."

[Eurobabe]

28. I agree with you, this is just fucking INSANE!!!

[ohio2007]

60. Stand-off in Gulf with Iran 'a bit like Cold War'

British admirals see it the same way.Remember, the # 1 mission of our navies is to keep the sea lanes open.

Stand-off in Gulf with Iran 'a bit like Cold War'

Britain's most senior naval officer in the Gulf has likened the West's tense stand-off with Iran as being akin to "the height of the Cold War".

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Commodore Keith Winstanley also revealed that Royal Navy deployments in the region have almost doubled since October in a build-up that matches the rapid escalation of American maritime firepower

<snip>

While most of the coalition is engaged in routine patrols, Cdre Winstanley refers to the area of operations as the battle-space.

Commitments include protecting Iraq's southern oil terminals against attack until the Iraqi navy can prove its competence to ensuring the six miles of shipping lanes through the Strait of Hormuz remain open.

Up to 80 per cent of Europe's trade with the Far East and a substantial proportion of the world's oil and gas passes through local waters.

Nineteen countries belong to the coalition commanded by US Admiral Patrick Walsh. Maps at the command centre show the position of 45 naval vessels from the southern coast of Pakistan to the east coast of Africa.

<snip>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/26/wiran26.xml


The six mile wide deep channel of the straits are not on the Iranian side of Hormuz. If the mullahs try to close the shipping channel, they will be invading an Arab country that is a member of the Arab league. Iran will be decalring war on the Arabs. Their own Sunni population may not like that action. Many of them rely on the open sea lanes to earnn a living also.

http://www.payvand.com/news/07/feb/1356.html

It's a lose/lose situation for them.

This is why Iran wants desperately to open diplomatic channels with the US. ;

http://www.payvand.com/news/07/feb/1366.html

It's a Cold War chess game.

[rcdean]

15. These places are irrelevant. Turkey is what counts.

Israel doesn't need these principalities for flyover. The only one they need--and in fact can not do without--is Turkey.

Without Turkish permission, Israeli planes will have to fly many thousands of miles more to hit Iran.

All this is, imo, is orchestrated pressure on the Turks.

[ohio2007]

20. Turkey is irrelevant if the jets do not launch from Israel .

Nor is Turkey relevant if the jets fly around the Arabian peninsula, refueling then landing on Israeli airfields.
This article is about sabre rattling and brinkmanship.
It only puts heat on the little Sunni fiefdoms

[rcdean]

22. Turkey is essential. An Israeli attack is what we're talking about here.

Israel can't just "fly around the Arabian Peninsula" without either requiring clearance from one or more (Shiite) Islamic nations, or going--as I said--many thousands of miles out of their way.

We don't need to put "heat on the little Sunni fiefdoms." We've already got them under our thumb.

This heat is on Turkey. A Turk air corridor for Israel is essential to a viable attack. A viable attack is essential to a credible intimidation and / or war strategy. That's what this is all about.

[amandabeech]

23. So, Pelosi can stop this by enraging Turkey?

That might explain the recent actions to condemn the Turks for killing the Armenians around the time of WWI?

My roommate is Turkish, and she and her friends are enraged. According to her, the Turkish press is also outraged.

A little more aid for the Kurds, and Turkey will have none of it.

The Europeans could also put more pressure on the Turks to refuse the overflight by pulling back further from the accession talks over Turkish membership in the EU.

[rcdean]

34. That would be pretty clever of Nancy if that were her intent.

But I doubt the Turks would see Pelosi's joinder in the near universal criticism of the Armenian massacre as any additional reason to deny Turkey flyover rights.

Even though Turkey is Sunni, the last thing it wants is to stir up its inner Islam.

Granting flyover rights to Israel would enrage both brands of Islam against the Turk government both internally and throughout the region.

[amandabeech]

48. I think that you underestimate the Turkish touchiness over the Armenian

issue. They are in absolute denial on this one.

Pelosi doesn't strike me as sufficiently Machiavellian for this one.

However, I am surprised that the Armenian issue came up at this time, ahead of other, more pressing, domestic matters. I don't mean to condone Turkey's actions, but for me, this resolution would be a low-priority item at this time. There is a large Armenian-American community in California. Might there be a local political angle to this?

As to the inner Turkish Islam, it is unclear to me whether the current Turkish government particularly cares. From what I can tell from my source(s), many Turks are ready to give up on really joining the EU and the West in general because they feel that they are being jerked around and will never be fully accepted. Some sort of "middle way" between the West and the Islamic world may be the spot they pick. In that case, the somewhat forced secularism may seem less and less important to many Turks.

[ohio2007]

24. you assume

Israeli jets will launch from Israeli airbases.
why?

"We" are not putting the heat on Sunni fiefdoms.
The article doesn't originate from a NY Times stringer.

It's all about sabre rattling ever since 'reliable sources" have predicted the invasion of Iran now eminent for going on three years now.

I say let's "talk" and have nature take its course
http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=46548&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs

anyway, who's to say Israeli pilots are not in some fiefdoms hanger getting ready to over paint "U.S." markings on what are actually Israeli serial numbered jets ?

and if such a plan is "leaked" by a freedom of the fiefedom press stringer, then I simply state this article really is a threat to those U.S. "backers"

[amandabeech]

25. Or Israelis training carrier landings?

A little spray paint, and voila'! The Israeli navy suddenly has naval aviators.

Diego Garcia, anyone?

[rcdean]

33. Israel has no carriers.

They would be sitting ducks in the middle east without an enormous fighter force to guard them.

[amandabeech]

45. No, but we do.

If Israelis were practicing carrier landings on U.S. carriers, would we know?

If the paint shop tricked out our planes in Israeli colors and manned them with U.S. pilots under a covert operation, would we know it?

You know, sometimes secret ops stay secret for at least a decent interval because the folks who know are scared shitless about divuling anything to anybody.

Negroponte was moved out 'cause even he couldn't stomach what Cheney had in mind, and there's lots and lots of unaccounted for money sloshing around the middle east.

Who knows what a bunch of desperate folks in Washington and Israel could cook up?

If I can think of this stuff, why not them?

[Sterling]

53. What would be the point of having Israel do this attack?

Never mind why would we go through the trouble of training Israeli's to work off our CV's? We can and will do the job without Israels help. Letting them in on the game offers nothing but problems including the obvious logistical issues noted so far.

[ohio2007]

42. not at all

the US made jets enter an aircraft hanger that is being leased by the US military in Oman or the UAE with US Air Force marking clearly visable.... close the hanger doors,do a little touch up job and roll em out under the cover of darkness
viola, Israeli jets enter the airspace of the country that leases the same airbase th o the US air force.

Fly their mission, head out over the ocean and hook up with airborne tankers for the final leg around the Arabian peninsula.

viola !


But , maybe thats what they hope the Iranians think.

Maybe the Iranians will think that could be the zionist plan all along.
The talk is all saber rattling and a paranoid Persian may become a loose cannon and preempt an attack on a couple fiefdoms across the sea.

[amandabeech]

46. Lots of loose cannons in the Persian neighborhood, and not

all are Persian.

I believe we have a few rattling around.

[rcdean]

32. Israel has no foreign bases.

Launching Israeli jets from a US base on a US backed fiefdom would more or less defeat the purpose of Israel doing the attacking. It would clearly signal US involvement and approval.

However I suppose basing rights for Israel on, say, Qatar, may well be the next step in all of this.

Then when Israel strikes, Joe Sixpack would have a hard time thinking throught the logic and realizing it was actually George Bush launching a new war. Especially when network news downplays the obvious US collusion.

The Bushies have always relied on the dimwittedness of the average American voter and the collusion of the US MSM to get away with murder. Just because voters are with us now, don't count on it tomorrow.

[ohio2007]

43. Doesn't matter how it plays in the states,

What matters is how the Sunni world will pay lip service to their own populations, ridicule this dastardly attack committed by the zionists on the Persian "brothers"

yeah right,
But behind closed doors, the House of Saud will be great full for the zionists attack on what they also perceive as a nuclear threat threat.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15343184/

Not to mention that little 'tiff' the Euro powers have going on with Iran

http://www.startribune.com/722/v-print/story/1017084.html

When all is said....and nothing is done,
the wine and cheese crowd as well as Joe six pack will continue to have problems about how or why the world hates them so much.
The world is so full of hate for what we have.
And what we have, we take for granted like.... wine,cheese,beer, etc.

[amandabeech]

47. As I'm sure you know, there have been rumblings for months about

a general Sunni-Shiite rumble in the M.E.

One current rumble is that the U.S. is using some of that lost Iraq money to fund Al Quaeda types in Lebanon to go after primarily Shia Hezbullah.

The next thing you know, some operative will pull and Iran-Contra to get the Iranians to go after Al Quaeda in Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, *** and his band of idiots are making nice to the Iraqi Shia.

Add a little Saudi dough and stir.

*** Poof **** there goes the oil supply.

Sometimes I wonder why anyone wants to run for any nomination in 2008. The mess likely up for inheritance will be so bad that it will take a succession of really top tier Presidents to clean it up. How likely are we to have a Washington-Lincoln-FDR lineup for the next couple of decades? I've been a dem since 1967, and I've seen the Presidents that my beloved party has produced. The likelihood of hitting the Presidential trifecta does not appear promising. Of course, anyone we get in there will be light years ahead of any puke out there. I wonder if the magnitude of the job and the likelihood of at least partial failure will keep some of the best people out of the race.

[Sterling]

52. There wont be an Israeli attack.

It will be US. Letting Israel do it gives us nothing positive and a whole lot of problems with the Islamic countries we are not at war with. The unlikely premise put forth that you are discussing is based on the idea Israeli jets would first assemble at a US airbase closer to Iran. They could get there without violating anyones airspace.

This is all mute because this is the worst way to skin the cat politically speaking and Israel does not posses some sort of special capability that we do not in terms of Air Power. In fact the opposite is true. This is just Israels way of making it public that Iran will be attacked if the do not submit their nuke program, even if Israel has to do the dirty deed themselves.

[MGD]

36. Syria offers an even more direct route. My money is on the Syrian route.

[rcdean]

49. Interesting. That would require crossing Iraq. Hmm...

Wonder how it would play with the Shia puppet gov't majority in Iraq if the US ordered it to grant Israel flyover. The Iraqi gov't is on the verge of collapse anyhow.

[WorldResident]

26. Turkey's mistake was not taking a billion dollar bribe

n/t

[kiwilover]

29. Iraq Staging Area

They will overfly Jordan. Stop at an American base in Iraq and then off to Iran. Jordan is a puppet of the CIA. The puppet government in Baghdad will not dare say much. This is all Dickie Boys idea!!!!!!!!!!

[Marie26]

31. This doesn't make sense

Why would Israel need permission from UAE, Oman, etc? That's nowhere near the flight path from Israel to Iran. Why are these assurances going to the United States instead of Israel? Something is off w/this story.

[many a good man]

39. What the article doesn't say:

Saudi Arabia and Jordan have probably already consented. See Sy Hersh's http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070305fa_fact_hersh?page=1

Target: Khuzestan

[TheWraith]

41. Uh, you don't need to go over any of those countries in order to get from Israel to Iran.

You do, however, have to go over some combination of Jordan, Syria, Iraq, or Saudi Arabia.

[many a good man]

44. If you fly south from Israel

over Jordan and SA you could fly over those countries to get to Khuzestan. That way they could avoid overflying the shia south Iraq and instead fly over the US ships in Hormuz and the Gulf.

SA and Israel are hoping to stoke a war between Sunnis and Shiites throughout the region.

[TheWraith]

54. Sure, but then you're talking about going thousands of miles out of your way...

Almost certainly requiring refueling at some point, and in any event decreasing by orders of magnitude the amount of payload (weapons) you can carry. Plus being "feet wet" the whole time, if somebody has to punch out due to damage or mechanical failure, they get dropped in the ocean instead of on land. The shortest route between two points remains a straight line. (Or a curved line, the surface of the Earth being what it is.)

[Scurrilous]

57. Gulf countries: No air space for Israel

<snip>

"The Arab League said three Arab Gulf countries have denied Israel use of their air space to strike Iran.

Arab League Secretary-General Amr Mousa told reporters in Cairo the foreign ministers of Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates said there is no agreement allowing Israeli jets to use their air space to reach Iran.

His remarks came a day after Israel's Haaretz daily said Israel has received a green light from these three oil-rich states to pass through their air space to launch air strikes against Iran's Bushehr nuclear facility near the Arab Gulf region.

"These reports are either forged or fabricated," Mousa said, adding the foreign ministers of these countries have "officially authorized" him to relay this information.

"No Arab country could allow or give license to Israel to attack Iran," the head of the 22-member Arab League said."

http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/Gulf_countries_No_air_space_for_Israel/20070226-113547-4668r/

[maddezmom]

58. I think this is more likely

and probably deserves it's own post. :hi:

[ddbaj]

59. Israel will be able to do this strike, if they want to.

No question. Are they willing to deal with the blowback?

Are they willing to go to war? What worries me is that Olmert probably wants/needs a war to make up for the Lebanon affair which has his government very weak.

Sound familiar?