U.S. planning for Israeli strike at Iran (warning: Washington Times)

[Syrinx]

Washington, DC, May. 7 (UPI) -- U.S. authorities have extensively considered the possibility -- or likelihood -- that Israel will attack Iran's nuclear facilities, perhaps this year.

U.S. analysts and government sources said the Bush administration has discussed the prospect of an Israeli air strike in terms of the diplomatic, military and security implications for the United States, particularly its military presence in Iraq and the Persian Gulf region, the Middle East Newsline reported Friday.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040507-085525-6139r.htm

[aquart]

1. They've done it before.

Iran knows they've done it before. Therefore, one supposes they have the sense to take precautions.

Would I be terribly upset? Nuh uh.

Would you be? Tell the truth.

[Syrinx]

3. probably I would

Not because I think the Iranian mullahs are good guys, but we are facing world war if this stuff keeps spiralling out of control like it seems it might be right now.

[thebigidea]

6. golly, I hope Bill Kristol gets his goons to convince us to help!

Regime Change II: Electric Boogaloo. It'll work as well as the first one, we can just do a shitload of airstrikes as an October Surprise...

[daleo]

14. A nuclear war would be upsetting

Remember, Pakistan has the bomb, so an Islamic bomb is a fact of life. For Israel to attack Iran, on top of the U.S.'s invasion, occupation, and humiliation of the Iraqi people - well there may come a time when someone does something unpredictable. And that could very quickly spiral out of control.

[hang a left]

15. I don't think Russia would just sit around either. n/t

[nodehopper]

22. why do people immediately jump to a nuclear war scenario?

There isn't going to be an all-out nuclear war because of Pakistan, or North Korea, or any other country that has, like, a handful of bombs, because if they attempted to strike at anyone, they would be nuked. What is reasonable to be afraid of is nuclear terrorism, them selling those bombs on the black market, etc. etc. It's not the Cold War anymore, the threat has mutated.

[daleo]

29. Perhaps it isn't too likely

It is just that global nuclear war is the kind of thing you only get to guess wrong about once.

[nodehopper]

34. Yes, obviously

But we've had a lot of "insane" dictators, like Kim Jong Il, but they are corrupt and murderous, not suicidally insane. What's Pakistan going to do? Launch its one nuclear missile at the US? Nuclear terrorism is what terrifies me; suicidally insane, in the most literal, non-hyperbolic, non-political-metaphor sense people are the ones who would try to acquire "suitcase bombs" or whatnot and use them.

[daleo]

36. In the context of the earlier discussion, here is a more complete post

1) Pakistan is known to have nuclear weapons, dozens, perhaps up to 100. It also possesses missile technology and aircraft to deliver them, at least as far as major population centers in India.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/

2) Therefore, it may already have supplied nuclear weapons or the necessary know-how to Iran, which means that Israel may not be up against the non-nuclear power it assumes it is. Alternatively, Pakistan may have based some of its own weapons in Iran, with an undeclared agreement to help protect Iran. The fact that the western media or the CIA have not made this common knowledge doesn't mean it couldn't be true. They are co-religionists, and they feel that Christian and/or Jewish nations have been systematically attacking and humiliating them. That is what I meant when I said there is already an Islamic bomb, so Israel cannot stop what already is.

3) I believe it was Kissinger who said he miscalculated the Yom Kipper war, not realizing people might start a war they couldn't win simply for self-respect.

4) If a few nukes did get launched in the middle east, it could easily escalate to including India, who is Pakistan's main adversary and has dozens to hundreds of nuclear weapons.

5) That could bring in China, Russia, the U.S. etc. North Korea is another wild card.

This is just one scenario. Yes, nuclear terrorism is a concern, but as far as the human race goes, nuclear armed militaries are still the ones that could do us in overnight.

[Just Me]

50. While the Cold War is over,the US has created the conditions for WWIV

,...in a world that does not want another war. Everybody knows about the PNAC American imperialism agenda,...EVERYBODY (except the majority of Americans, of course *puke*)! The whole world sees the US as the latest "destroy and conquer" power out of control.

In my humble view, this world is sick of colonialism and imperialism and corporatism and it will fight back. I agree that the fight may be far more covert than ever before because the USA is giving the world no other option than to fight back via a form of guerilla dirty whatever it takes, "TO BE FREE" to believe what people want to believe and to pursue.

I believe this administration could become what historians write as the final destructive leadership that humanity overcame. Let's hope both human strength and the ideal of democracy prevail.

[KharmaTrain]

27. The Israelis Attaked Iran?

That be Iraq...but what's a couple of letters...I get your point.

I smell strawman here. The heats so great on this regime's mess in Iraq, it's time to create a diversion elsewhere and Bunnypant's good friends in the Likud are more than happy to assist. If not in deed, definitely in word.

An attack would be a Hail Mary in yelling how evil these Arabs are (doesn't matter what sect or nationality...they all have mustaches) are as a justification for continued subjugation.

[Whoa_Nelly]

2. Swell..that's just really swell news...

Am overwhelmed, almost completely emotionally exhausted over the abominable information, pictures and news...how much more? I know there will be more...:cry:

[tritsofme]

4. I would support this.

Nuclear weapons in the hands of the Mullahs is too dangerous to play politics with.

[IndianaGreen]

9. Israel has never hesitated to put American lives at risk!

This is what Israel did when it lobbied for the invasion of Iraq together with her allies in America.

It will be American lives that will be put at risk if Israel attacks Iran. Israel doesn't care about that, anymore than it cared when she bombed, torpedoed, and strafed the USS Liberty in 1967.

The one silver lining about this mess is that the US will be forced out of the Middle East, leaving Israel and her idiotic settlers to fend for themselves without having a co-dependent America to bail their sorry asses out.

[goforit]

47. Hey...and don't forget Israel's connection to the WTC.

They want to conquere world even more than Bush does.

[Just Me]

51. Were you being sarcastic?

I mean, about the part where you said that the US would be forced out of the ME leaving Israel to fend for itself?

[lapfog_1]

10. Oh... but nukes in the hands of the Likuds are OK.

What will happen if they strike... before it was secular Saddam
and nobody in the Islamic world much cared... not to mention that
many there were just a scared of a nuclear Saddam as the Israelis.

Now it's a much different time. Islamic people the world over are
seeing a united "crusade" against them, with the US and the most
reactionary elements of Israel in a military conquest of traditional
Islamic lands. An attack on Iran might cause a nuclear exchange with
Pakistan. Couldn't happen? Well, I hope not.

[punpirate]

12. Let's look at a parallel situation....

The US has had considerable nuclear weapons at its disposal, and yet, we've had people such as Nixon, Ford, Reagan, the serial Bushes, with their fingers poised on the figurative red button. Nevertheless, at the same time, the US did not launch attacks on either the Soviet Union or China to limit their ability to produce nuclear weapons. We did not do so out of the knowledge that the exchange might be ruinous to us (the so-called MAD policy).

Israel is now the fifth-largest nuclear power in the world, after the US, Russia, Great Britain and France. Following the logic, it's okay for Israel to attack Iran because Israel would not experience absolute destruction for doing so.

Israel's possession of hundreds of nuclear weapons is the elephant in the front room of Middle East politics. We claim to want parity in the Middle East, but we exert no control over Israel, and we continue to support them militarily and economically, and our current administration supports Sharon because of his far right-wing views, especially with regard to any and all Arabs.

To suggest that it's okay for Israel to risk war with Iran by bombing them because they can, ultimately, get away with it without mutually-assured destruction is the basest version of realpolitik, and that will ultimately rebound on the US, if only because we are Israel's only substantial financial and military supporter in the world.

What happens if the Wahhabi of the Middle East obtain control of the region's governments in the next few years and determine to avenge the fundamentalist mullahs of Iran? Israel's use of its nuclear weapons in such a conflict will be its undoing.

Best to short-circuit difficulties now, rather than prime and plump Sharon to carry out our current desires in the region for us. Sharon is a transitory force in Israel, as is the Likud. When the US government becomes less enamored of the right-wing politics of Sharon, and the American people become less enamored of their own right-wing leaders, the Israeli people will find Sharon less favorable, as well.

No proliferation and arms reduction is of benefit to all the world, but self-serving pandering is not. It is fundamentally hypocritical of the US to support Sharon in this matter without also reducing our arms, and inducing Israel, by whatever means necessary, to reduce its nuclear weapons, as well.

We've had an object lesson this week in the contrast between our words and our actions in Iraq. We need to begin to work for our actions to match our ideals--preserving Israel's nuclear hegemony in the region does not do that.

Cheers.

[Ms. Clio]

19. While nuclear weapons in the hands of neocons is simply too dangerous

[goforit]

48. LOL!!!..........This is reality. They control the little red button.

[Darranar]

32. And can such a strike stop them?

What makes you think that Iran will attack any nation with nukes, anyway?

It will probably result in its annihilation.

[ex_jew]

52. Just like it was "too dangerous" to leave Saddam in charge

He's suicidally evil, we were told. Turns out, the all-knowers were wrong. Did you learn from this experience ?

[bluestateguy]

5. Not sur how I feel about this

If there is strong evidence that Iran has advanced weapons programs posing an imminent danger, then a strike may be warranted (not a government takeover and occupation). If not, the Israelis better back off. Bringing Israel into all this will make it an "Islam vs. the West" type of war, and the US cannot win a war like that.

[Syrinx]

7. I totally agree with you

As if it matters. :)

[tritsofme]

8. I think Iran's close proximity to Israel

makes Iran's possesion of nuclear weapons an imminent threat to Israel's security.

[nonbelief]

13. Oh...of course

And Israel's close proximity to Iran does not make Israel a security threat to Iran?

[Malva Zebrina]

23. certainly looks that way

the nuclear war as it looks now, is a war where one big power who actually has nuclear weapons, attacks another country that is trying to develop nuclear weapons to "defend itself" against those of the other country being launched at them.

I see nothing wrong with it--I do see something wrong with Israel trying to control who can have the same weapons as they and attacking that country in an effort to strike it, and it's defenses down.

that is what it boils down to.

any intelligent leader, in that situation, will seek to level the playing field by developing these nuclear weapons--it is simply a country pursuing the "right to defend itself"--sound familiar?

This is what Bush, and other Likud party lovers, say about Israel.

I think it is a two way street. Any leader can see that having nuclear weapons is a "defense" against other countries in the area or even outside the area, attacking them with nuclear weapons especially when an evil and stupid man such as Bush has cited them for being in some sort of an "axis of evil" LOL

Let them all have nucleaer weapons--it seems to have worked for North Korea--

[Toronto Ron]

26. One tiny difference:

One country does not recognize the other's right to exist and funds armed groups to attack its civilians. I'm sure you know which is which.

[The Stranger]

40. "I'm sure you know which is which."

You make an excellent point. One nation is going to bomb another nation without pretext or justification.

So tell us again: which one wants to destroy which?

[Ms. Clio]

20. And that's all that matters, of course--Israel's security

[Bandit]

21. It sounds to me like Israel is an imminent threat to Iran not the other

way around. When was the last time any country attacked Israel. When was the last time Israel attacked another country? Last week for Israel but I think it has been quite some time since any country attacked Israel. We are not necessarily the good guys here and Israel isn't either.

[IndianaGreen]

24. Look at a map and see how far Iran is from Israel!

Iran is farther from Israel than Turkey!

[Toronto Ron]

25. Pretty map, but

Israel is within striking range of Iran's long-range missiles.

[daleo]

30. Syria's situation is also interesting

Essentially encircled by U.S. allies (Israel, Turkey), or countries occupied by the U.S. (Iraq). It would be quite reasonable for them to be concerned about their security,

[atreides1]

44. Can't Be Done

Without direct assistance from the US. Israeli jets would have to fly through Jordanian or Syrian airspace and then fly over Iraqi airspace to reach Iran.

1. It's doubtful that either Jordan or Syria would allow it, but they couldn't stop it.

2. They would have to refuel, either in flight or land at a US controlled airfield.

3. In order to fly through Iraqi airspace the US would have to give
Israel permission to do so, if not then a USAF fighter would likely
fire upon the Israelies.

Irregardless of how it's done, the US will have to play a part in the attack. And when this occurs Bin Laden will have all the recruits he needs, they will be lining up just waiting to take the battle to the Israelis on a level that even they will not be prepared to deal with. And the lives of US military personnel in the Middle East won't be worth squat, and the civilian population of the US will become targets for decades.

If I were in charge, I'd tell the Israelis if they launch an attack, I will not hesitate to send fighters, or to deploy anti-aircraft artillery to shoot them out of the sky. Because as the leader of the US it is my sworn duty to protect the American people, and if that includes shooting down the Israeli airforce then so be it.

Just another way to look at things.

[Geo55]

11. Not sur

"and the US cannot win a war like that"
We ain't won this one....
They used to say..."follow the money"...but now it's "follow the OIL"
What do you think will happen when we start controlling mideast oil?
Can you say , "Armagedden?"

[Darranar]

31. But can Israel take it out in one strike?

If not, then the only result will be hightened tensions in the Middle East.

[ze_dscherman]

16. There was a Newsmax article claiming the same that appeared 9/11

http://focusin.ads.targetnet.com/ad/id=gdp11&opt=hhj&cv=210&uid=7223828
:tinfoilhat:

[0007]

17. Is this "wag the dog"

The Washington Times link isn't even worth opening up, so until another one comes along, hasta la vista.

[teryang]

18. This plan was in the works

...a few months ago and then put on the back burner because of the Russian response.

Our regime is risking WWIII or alternatively the lives of thousands of young Americans for the adoption of Israeli pre-emptive, elective war policy. This one will not go over. We will suffer grave consequences. They may not appear immediately but they will occur.

[Minstrel Boy]

49. Important point about Russia.

I think Iran is Russia's line in the sand.

[keithyboy]

28. Then, Iran has every right to take 'pre-emptive' action against Israel

And the US as a supporter of the rogue nation of Israel and as a rogue nation itsself.

[IndianaGreen]

35. Exactly, Iran should do what Israel did in 1967 and strike first

Take out Israel's nuclear reactor at Dimona, and destroy Israel's nuclear stockpiles.

Israel's laboratory model of nuclear weapons core:



http://www.nonviolence.org/vanunu/photos.html

[rebellious woman]

33. Sh*t, just what we need, more bloodshed and murdering, I can't

take much more, it's like "peace" is just a word
in the dictionary. When does this stop? America
is not my country anymore, it belongs to BARBARIANS!!!!!

[despairing optimist]

37. The sound you hear is the world disintegrating

The unipolar nightmare in international relations continues unabated. Sometimes I think that the pro-Zionist forces are actually moles of the anti-Zionist forces. Ignorance born of ideological certainty will kill us all.

[flaminbats]

38. What a creative strategy!!!

Set off a massive nuclear war...Pakistan against India, Israel against Egypt and Iran, and NATO against China and North Korea. Who knows which way the Russian nukes would fly in such a holocaust! Why not just play Russian Roulette? A final toast to the end of mankind and the true liberation of the world from weapons of mass destruction...:toast:

[pacifictiger]

39. that would unleash everything.

You'd better pray that does not happen - the consequences would be disaster for all. End of story.

[The Stranger]

41. Once you get past the irrational knee jerk response that basically

asserts that mullahs are subhuman and would launch nuclear weapons as soon as they were developed, you quickly reach a discussion of the principle of mutually assured destruction, which has kept various nuclear powers from blowing up the world or invading one another now since the advent of the Bomb.

And, it should be pointed out, that the only time nuclear weapons have been used in war is when there was no deterrent and the principle of mutually assured destruction did not exist, when the U.S. was the world's only nuclear power.

[jpak]

42. Israeli warplanes would have to transit US controlled Iraqi airspace

or US monitored Saudi Arabian / Persian Gulf airspace.

They would have to have access to Coalition aircraft IFF codes to safely transit to and from targets in Iran.

The US would be utterly complicit in any Israeli airstrike against Iran.

[Vitruvius]

43. If Israel blows up an Iranian reactor and releases the nuclear

material therein, the fallout will be comparable to that of a nuclear bomb.

And would morally justify a nuclear retaliation against Israel.

Under international law, any soverign state -- including Iran -- has the right to develop any weapon it damn well pleases; international law only regulates the USE of weapons. And under international law, initiating an aggressive war is "the supreme crime".

The world has had it up to HERE with Bu$h/BFEE/Likudnik aggression.

[iamjoy]

45. Israel Would Only Be Following the U.S. Example

By invading Iraq, the Bush Administration has given a green light to the notion of the pre-emptive strike. "We" have said that we will not wait to be attacked first, if we sense our country is threatened or endangered by another, we will eliminate that threat.

So, when Israel comes and says they want to launch a pre-emptive srike against Iran's nuclear weapon's facilities....

[goforit]

46. Way to go Poppy Bush,......Cover up your own Nuclear Plants you built!

Yah..........Sharon does favors for the slimiest thugs on Earth.

He'll just get those plants out of the way, and Poppy Bush
will be in the clear.

What a scam!!!!

And here I thought Enron, and poppy's buddy Kenny Lay, was the
the topper.