Israeli Air Force practices for Iranian strike

[0497]

Might be interesting ....

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/washington/20iran.html?hp


June 20, 2008

U.S. Says Exercise by Israel Seemed Directed at Iran

By MICHAEL R. GORDON (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/michael_r_gordon/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and ERIC SCHMITT (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/eric_schmitt/index.html?inline=nyt-per)

WASHINGTON — Israel (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/israel/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) carried out a major military exercise earlier this month that American officials say appeared to be a rehearsal for a potential bombing attack on Iran (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iran/index.html?inline=nyt-geo)’s nuclear facilities.

Several American officials said the Israeli exercise appeared to be an effort to develop the military’s capacity to carry out long-range strikes and to demonstrate the seriousness with which Israel views Iran’s nuclear program.

More than 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighters participated in the maneuvers, which were carried out over the eastern Mediterranean and over Greece during the first week of June, American officials said.

The exercise also included Israeli helicopters that could be used to rescue downed pilots. The helicopters and refueling tankers flew more than 900 miles, which is about the same distance between Israel and Iran’s uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, American officials said.

Israeli officials declined to discuss the details of the exercise. A spokesman for the Israeli military would say only that the country’s air force “regularly trains for various missions in order to confront and meet the challenges posed by the threats facing Israel.”

But the scope of the Israeli exercise virtually guaranteed that it would be noticed by American and other foreign intelligence agencies. A senior Pentagon official who has been briefed on the exercise, and who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the political delicacy of the matter, said the exercise appeared to serve multiple purposes.

One Israeli goal, the Pentagon official said, was to practice flight tactics, aerial refueling and all other details of a possible strike against Iran’s nuclear installations and its long-range conventional missiles.

A second, the official said, was to send a clear message to the United States and other countries that Israel was prepared to act militarily if diplomatic efforts to stop Iran from producing bomb-grade uranium continued to falter.

“They wanted us to know, they wanted the Europeans to know, and they wanted the Iranians to know,” the Pentagon official said. “There’s a lot of signaling going on at different levels.”

Several American officials said they did not believe that the Israeli government had concluded that it must attack Iran and did not think that such a strike was imminent.

Shaul Mofaz (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/shaul_mofaz/index.html?inline=nyt-per), a former Israeli defense minister who is now a deputy prime minister, warned in a recent interview with the Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot that Israel might have no choice but to attack. “If Iran continues with its program for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack,” Mr. Mofaz said in the interview published on June 6, the day after the unpublicized exercise ended. “Attacking Iran, in order to stop its nuclear plans, will be unavoidable.”

But Mr. Mofaz was criticized by other Israeli politicians as seeking to enhance his own standing as questions mount about whether the embattled Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/ehud_olmert/index.html?inline=nyt-per), can hang on to power.

Israeli officials have told their American counterparts that Mr. Mofaz’s statement does not represent official policy. But American officials were also told that Israel had prepared plans for striking nuclear targets in Iran and could carry them out if needed.

Iran has shown signs that it is taking the Israeli warnings seriously, by beefing up its air defenses in recent weeks, including increasing air patrols. In one instance, Iran scrambled F-4 jets to double-check an Iraqi civilian flight from Baghdad to Tehran.

“They are clearly nervous about this and have their air defense on guard,” a Bush administration official said of the Iranians.

Any Israeli attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities would confront a number of challenges. Many American experts say they believe that such an attack could delay but not eliminate Iran’s nuclear program. Much of the program’s infrastructure is buried under earth and concrete and installed in long tunnels or hallways, making precise targeting difficult. There is also concern that not all of the facilities have been detected. To inflict maximum damage, multiple attacks might be necessary, which many analysts say is beyond Israel’s ability at this time.

But waiting also entails risks for the Israelis. Israeli officials have repeatedly expressed fears that Iran will soon master the technology it needs to produce substantial quantities of highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons.

Iran is also taking steps to better defend its nuclear facilities. Two sets of advance Russian-made radar systems were recently delivered to Iran. The radar will enhance Iran’s ability to detect planes flying at low altitude.

Mike McConnell (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/john_michael_mcconnell/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the director of national intelligence, said in February that Iran was close to acquiring Russian-produced SA-20 surface-to-air missiles. American military officials said that the deployment of such systems would hamper Israel’s attack planning, putting pressure on Israel to act before the missiles are fielded.

For both the United States and Israel, Iran’s nuclear program has been a persistent worry. A National Intelligence Estimate (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/i/us_intelligence_community/national_intelligence_estimates/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) that was issued in December by American intelligence agencies asserted that Iran had suspended work on weapons design in late 2003. The report stated that it was unclear if that work had resumed. It also noted that Iran’s work on uranium enrichment and on missiles, two steps that Iran would need to take to field a nuclear weapon, had continued.

In late May, the International Atomic Energy Agency (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/i/international_atomic_energy_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org) reported that Iran’s suspected work on nuclear matters was a “matter of serious concern” and that the Iranians owed the agency “substantial explanations.”

Over the past three decades, Israel has carried out two unilateral attacks against suspected nuclear sites in the Middle East. In 1981, Israeli jets conducted a raid against Iraq’s nuclear plant at Osirak after concluding that it was part of Saddam Hussein (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/saddam_hussein/index.html?inline=nyt-per)’s program to develop nuclear weapons. In September, Israeli aircraft bombed a structure in Syria that American officials said housed a nuclear reactor built with the aid of North Korea.

The United States protested the Israeli strike against Iraq in 1981, but its comments in recent months have amounted to an implicit endorsement of the Israeli strike in Syria.

Pentagon officials said that Israel’s air forces usually conducted a major early summer training exercise, often flying over the Mediterranean or training ranges in Turkey where they practice bombing runs and aerial refueling. But the exercise this month involved a larger number of aircraft than had been previously observed, and included a lengthy combat rescue mission.

Much of the planning appears to reflect a commitment by Israel’s military leaders to ensure that its armed forces are adequately equipped and trained, an imperative driven home by the difficulties the Israeli military encountered in its Lebanon operation against Hezbollah (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/h/hezbollah/index.html?inline=nyt-org).

“They rehearse it, rehearse it and rehearse it, so if they actually have to do it, they’re ready,” the Pentagon official said. “They’re not taking any options off the table.”

Ethan Bronner contributed reporting from Jerusalem.

[No_Speed_Restriction]

Fully justified for taking preventative measures against a legitimate threat.

:ok: עם ישראל חי

[Dan D'air]

What took them so long??

[Beatriz Fontana]

Apparently an unnamed Israeli official has said as much, too.

Notice that this broke on a Friday to really get up the noses of the Iranians, and so the Iranian establishment did what it's very good at, delivered some firebrand rhetoric at Friday prayers, thereby playing straight into the stereotype!!

See, a well planned operation! :}

[Dan D'air]

See, a well planned operation!

Ooh er, Bit of a Freudian slip there eh, Beatriz!!

[glad rag]

So the outcome of all this sabre rattelling is what exactly? Some more shelled Pallistinian schools perhaps.............:mad:

[Beatriz Fontana]

Absolutely intentional, Dan....!

Sadly, yes, the Palestinians will be at the ar$e end of the retaliation.

[buoy15]

Dan D'air - Beatriz and glad rag
Are you all on drugs or are you posting without your supervisor and forgetting to take your medication?

Sounds like your well into each other:suspect:

[glad rag]

I'm not a twisted r*ghead full of hatred, who prays 6 times a day and reads the Koran,

So what do you read then?? (nice bit of racism from yourself there, you might want to edit that out BTW it kind of gives your game away).

If you would stop and THINK the only way Israel is going to survive is by not playing into the hands of those who control the masses, something that requires a deft touch and restraint......yeah sorry I forgot :uhoh:

Are you so out of touch with the realities of warfare and escalation that you cannot see the trap that is being laid??

Some of us can distance ourselves and see it can you?

rgds

glad rag.

[brickhistory]

"Restraint' is not sending retaliating jets after catching a few SCUDs with HE warheads and thus breaking up a shaky Western-Muslim coalition.

Stupidity is waiting for another to fill his hand with the means to fulfill the publicly stated the desire to eliminate one's own country from the map.

With any luck or common sense, Iran will take Israel's point with the demonstration.

[BOAC]

Hopefully Iran will take the hint as BH says.

Now - can we get Israel to enter Zimbabwe and put an end to all this mealy-mouthed ineffective hand-wringing?:mad:

[Beatriz Fontana]

If someone has access to the Torah, I'm sure between that, the Bible and the Qu'ran we can all find reasons for wiping someone off the map.

That's the problem. This stand-off will have religious overtones and that's going to be a VERY bad thing. Gesturing and posturing like this has got nations in to deep trouble in the past and anyone who steps back and takes a strategic look at what's going on will see the bad omens gathering.

Do you still need planning permission to build a bunker in the back garden?

[Dysonsphere]

Israel has nukes must be the worst kept secert in the world and sooner or later they will use them if they feel defeat is staring them in the face. Lets hope if that day ever comes everyone else keeps there cool.

[taxydual]

Religion and nukes.

The Bible, the Torah and the Qu'ran have one, particular, small warning in common.

Armageddon

And it's not a Hollywood film!!

:hmm::hmm:

[No_Speed_Restriction]

Are you saying now is a bad time to invest in property in Dimona, Israel?

[Beatriz Fontana]

Personally, I'd give the whole Middle East and Maghreb a miss right now.

[Dan D'air]

Personally, I'd give the whole Middle East and Maghreb a miss right now

Wise words indeed, young Beatriz. One thing's fo' sho', It would be the best place in the world to give a miss to whilst it's being hit.

Sp. Should that be miss or miss(ile)?

[taxydual]

21st Century weaponry versus 1st Century fundamentalism.

Write that up as a Staff Briefing Paper!!!!!

:ugh::ugh:

[Beatriz Fontana]

taxydual,

I wonder what Clausewitz would have to say about taking on an enemy that is actually willing, nay, wants to die? Surely someone on the Higher Staff course would / should have written a paper on that!!

[coineach]

I cannot see how Israel could be so stupid even thinking about attacking the (some) 1000 Iranian sites related to their nuclear enterprise - for a start Israel simply does not have the resources. If they were so stupid, the outcome would be unthinkable and one which the USA certainly could not afford to happen.

As relatiliation, Iran would attack tanker traffic in the Straits of Hormuz with silkworm missiles (supplied by their ally, China), thus stopping the shipment of oil from Saudi Araabia, Kuwait, Iraq and UAE. Oil would not just go over US$ 140/barrel, it would probably rocket to at least $500/barrel !!!!! Pprune would go out of business due to there being no aircraft to fly in the World, therefore no pilots, Trolly Dollies, Engineers and the like - no fuel.

Shiite and Sunnies would join forces and kick the US out of Iraq and the rest of the Middle East - the USA has never and could never win a guerrilla war and certainly not one occurring in several theatres at the same time.

Syria, Hezbolla in Lebanon and in Gazza would join in against Israel. It is also highly likely that the Saudi Government would be deposed and their military would join in the "free for all".

Investment in the USA would suddenly dry up sending the US Dollar into a spiral until it reached parity with the Zimbabwe Dollar thus causing major problems at home.

Iran would continue to export its oil to China by tanker until they were attacked by the US from their base in Diego Garci - that would bring China into the conflict with its million stong military machine and nucear weapons.

Simply what one would call World War 3 !!!!!

No need to go through any flight training - we would all have wings! http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/icons/mpangel.gif

Is that what you really want???

[mr fish]

finally we will be able to put the eagle v tomcat argument to bed ( jeez, thats flippant):E

[Beatriz Fontana]

Yep, far too many passages in the Qu'ran talk about the end of the world. Pick your quote!

Richard Dawkins. What a literary god....

Hang on.... :O

[No_Speed_Restriction]

You can disect this argument to no end. The point is that Israel is biblically and morally correct to take any action it needs to avoid another holocaust; one which many nations decided to turn their backs on 60-70 years ago. Sadly, the formation of the state of Israel in 1948 came with a price tag of 6 million lives; any more will be unacceptable.

[taxydual]

Beatriz

I plagerise

"Clausewitz especially examines the teleology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology) of war: whether war is a means to an end outside itself or whether it can be an end in itself. He concludes that the latter cannot be so, and that war is "politics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics) by different means"; i.e. that war must not exist only for its own sake. It must serve some purpose for the state."

Perhaps for 'politics', read 'religion'.

I know that this is too deep.

Whatever, it frightens me.

Regards

[Beatriz Fontana]

Don't disagree, taxydual, but I think Clausewitz would have written something very different if he had been confronted with an enemy that actually wants to kill itself in pursuit of its end. I recall a whole section on "moral quantities".

Crikey, it's Saturday night and I'm quoting Clausewitz. I need a drink (and a life!)

[brickhistory]

coin:Is that what you really want???

But do you ask the same question of Iran?

You know, the one actually threatening to eradicate another nation and seemingly going hammer and tongs to develop the means to do so?

Why is Israel, the US, and the West in the wrong only?

For the record, I hope this doesn't turn out badly. However, I would not blame Israel one bit for either acting preemptively or, if waiting and attacked with a larger than normal 'bang,' for responding with like.

I also see this thread headed to Jet Blast.

[No_Speed_Restriction]

Biblically meaning that Israel has full rights to exist to protect the Jewish nation and, both politically and biblically, to exist in the land of Israel.

[glad rag]

Quote "Biblically meaning that Israel has full rights to exist to protect the Jewish nation and, both politically and biblically, to exist in the land of Israel.

And here we have the problem..............in a nice honey colour for you.....:(

You are just as bad as each other. :(:(

There is no hope.

[High_lander]

I wish our FJ were camoflaged like the IDF F-16s & -15s! Heck, even the UH-60s are desert Camoflaged.



Does this count as Mil talk?:E:E

[Squirrel 41]

Most interesting point is that if this exercise over Greece was something other than a big, long-range exercise, and was in fact some form of mission rehearsal, it is telling that all and sundry are talking about "900nm".

Whatever is 900nm from any Israeli AB (Tel Aviv to Bushehr has a great cricle of 974nm according to http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=oibb-llbg%0D%0A&RANGE=900nm%40llbg%0D%0A&PATH-COLOR=red&PATH-UNITS=mi&PATH-MINIMUM=&SPEED-GROUND=&SPEED-UNITS=kts&RANGE-STYLE=best&RANGE-COLOR=navy&MAP-STYLE=)
the fact is that this requires overflghts of Jordan, Saudi, Iraq and possibly Kuwait.

Now how sensible would it be for any of these countries to allow this, or to look weak by being unable to stop it? None, I would suggest - esp. if it's the Israelis attacking a fellow Islamic (albeit not Arab), state.

Don't think that this is something that is going to happen anytime soon, and certainly no earlier than the Wednesday of the first full week in November (ie, the day after the US Presidential election).

And of course the fact that minus a Security Council Resolution or a imminent threat that fits the Caroline formula (necessity of self-defense, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation) - and no, we're not there yet - such an attack would be illegal aggression against Iran, should remain at the front of our minds.

S41

[High_lander]

...such an attack would be illegal aggression against Iran, should remain at the front of our minds.


What about the ceasefire during the 6 Day War? Israel took the Golon Heights, which the hold to this day. They were taken AFTER the cease-fire which was called for by the UNSC.

I've just finished reading "Six Days" by Jeremy Bowen (ISBN-0-7434-49690-X). Very good book.

[Modern Elmo]

... the fact is that this requires overflghts of Jordan, Saudi, Iraq and possibly Kuwait. ...

So it can't happen without say-so from US leadership. Can the latter-day Israelites get permission from Washington? That's the question.

[High_lander]

Perhaps, Israel buying the F-35B would give them an opportunity to operate with the USN?


Say, off ships in the Gulf?


Realistically, could anyone see an order for Storm Shadow/SCALP if it was integrated on F-35?

[Modern Elmo]

Perhaps, Israel buying the F-35B would give them an opportunity to operate with the USN?


Say, off ships in the Gulf?

Say, how about a US Navy ship named USS Liberty?

[brickhistory]

So it can't happen without say-so from US leadership. Can the latter-day Israelites get permission from Washington? That's the question.

The question is: HOW can you possibly believe this?

That ANY nation, Israel or not, needs the U.S.' permission to do something in it's own best interests?

Damn, I knew we were powerful, but not that powerful!






(Sarcasm to 'on.')

[Rwy in Sight]

I do not understand why they used a training field over central Greece where a great part of flying is over water and not let's say towards Turkey where more overland flying is involved?

And I need your opinion what would happen if Iran launches a similar drill towards let's say Pakistan as a response to the Israel's exercise?

Rwy in Sight

[High_lander]

Say, how about a US Navy ship named USS Liberty?

Modern Elmo - I didn't say attack knowing its your 'allies'.

In Six Days (the book I referenced above), one of the ideas put forward is that the Americans heard something the Israelis didn't want them too, so they dispatched the ship.

[ORAC]

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IMAGES/CARTOONS/toon041608c.gif

[CirrusF]

You can disect this argument to no end. The point is that Israel is biblically and morally correct to take any action it needs to avoid another holocaust


Yep - it is self-righteous, deluded argument like that from modern Israelis that is problem in the middle-east. The Bible gives Israel no grounds whatsoever to steal other people's land. And how does Israel's self-proclaimed morality sit with its own possession of nuclear arms?

Given Israel's history of pre-emptive attacks on neighbours I would say Iran is right to be concerned about having a deterrent against Israel's nuclear capability. There is no way that Iran could launch an nuclear attack on Israel without being immediately wiped out by US retaliation. However, the US would not wipe out Israel if Israel were to launch a nuclear strike on Iran - ergo Iran is perfectly entitled to make their own deterrent - if that indeed is what they are doing. And there is no definite proof that they are doing that - just a lot of propaganda from Israel....

[Gainesy]

this requires overflghts of Jordan, Saudi, Iraq and possibly Kuwait.



Or, North to Turkey and hang a right.

[Dan D'air]

Or, North to Turkey and hang a right.

Of course, they wouldn't have any plans in place already, would they?

[Dan D'air]

cirrusfrance, You might want to rein yourself in a little there, it was France who gave Israel the capability to build nuclear weapons.

[glad rag]

cirrusfrance, You might want to rein yourself in a little there, it was France who gave Israel the capability to build nuclear weapons.

That has nothing to do with the predicted aggression..

[Beatriz Fontana]

(Places tin hat firmly on head and hides under the table awaiting the heavy clang of a reply unaware of irony)

We could solve the problem by moving the Jewish state to a less contentious place... just as Stalin did in declaring the Jewish Autonomous Region of Birobidjan. Apparently, the place is thriving and the neighbours aren't forever taking pot shots at each other.

If that fails, let's just have a little bit of equality when it comes to UNSCRs. If one country decides to ignore them, why shouldn't another?

[brickhistory]

glad rag, do ou refer to Israel's 'predicted aggression' or Iran's stated intention?

I am very curious as to why the fingers here typically only point one way.

[CirrusF]

Dan D'air


cirrusfrance, You might want to rein yourself in a little there, it was France who gave Israel the capability to build nuclear weapons.


Are you a bit thick? Have you ever noticed that - whichever country you happen to live in - that not all the residents are from that country? Have you never been in - say a minicab? Or bought a kebab? And has it never occured to you that not every resident of a given country can be held personally responsible for the political actions of the government of that country? I think you have been educated by watching Hollywood films....

On the subject of Hollywood history, even the US recognises that Israel probably has chemical and biological weapons (as well as nuclear weapons) in their arsenal, so if crass hypocrisy were not part of the US armoury Israel would have been invaded years ago...

[brickhistory]

Israel probably has chemical and biological weapons (as well as nuclear weapons) in their arsenal, so if crass hypocrisy were not part of the US armoury Israel would have been invaded years ago...

1. Probably? That's it? No proof?

2. If they do, have they used them? And the track record of the neighbors when possessing grown up toys?

3. Invade? As the Israelis would be the first to admit, they picked the one part of the Middle East with no oil.


C'mon, you can do better than this.

[BEagle]

Probably? That's it? No proof?

Perhaps you might direct that comment to that mad idiot who sits in the White House.

[CirrusF]

The US itself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction) estimates that Israel has Chemical and Biological weapons.

If I were Iranian, and lived in Iran with my family, I would certainly vote for a government that intended to build a nuclear deterrent. In case you have forgotten, Iraq invaded Iran in 1987 with US support (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_iraq_war), and approximately 1,000,000 Iranians were killed, many dying horrific deaths in WW1 style trench warfare using chemical weapons supplied by (guess who) the US. Iran has then had to watch Israel build a substantial armoury of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons while the US and west generally turns a blind eye, then the US invades Iraq on an obviously fabricated pretext, and then invades on the other side of the border in Afghanistan on another flimsy pretext. If I lived in Iran right now, I would be clamouring at my government to get some nukes fast!! It would seem that a nuclear deterrent is the only way to prevent an invasion by the US - after all the US did not invade North Korea, once they declared they had nukes. Suddenly "diplomacy" was the way forward there....

[Flyingblind]

Beatriz Fontana Wrote;

"We could solve the problem by moving the Jewish state to a less contentious place... just as Stalin did in declaring the Jewish Autonomous Region of Birobidjan. Apparently, the place is thriving and the neighbours aren't forever taking pot shots at each other."

Exactly my thoughts!

We have plenty of spare land here in OZ, was looking at my map and i think theres plenty of similar land up in the North Western area, between Port Headland and Broome. Lovely bit of land, surrounded by beach and the Indian Ocean.

Best thing is no neighbors trying to kill you, apart from local rednecks listening to 'achy breaky heart' but we'd move-on all the Riff Raff prior to the chosen ones arrival.

[MAINJAFAD]

:=:=:=Iraq invaded Iran in 1980, not 1987. Well before Ronnie Raygun got into the White House.

As for the US (and almost everybody else's support for Iraq at the time), the rule My Enemies Enemy is My Friend comes into play , unless you would like just to make a profit in the case of the Exocets and Mirage F1's/loaned SuE's that ended up in Iraq. In the US's case, when you storm my embasey and hold its staff hostage, that is usually counted as a act of war. The best line I heard about that war was from a USAF general....'Its a pity that both sides in that war can't lose'

[brickhistory]

BEags, we're not talking about Iraq. It is an "I" country, but not that one.


Do keep up.

------------------------------------------------------------

I'm still waiting patiently for someone who doesn't like Israel saber-rattling to explain why Iran to do so with an explicit, stated aim is accepted.

I'm sure they'll give your boats, guns, and uniforms back.

[MAINJAFAD]

As for the chemical weapons used by Iraqi, most of the equipment and materials used to make the stuff came from Continental Europe, not the US. Weapon cases holding the nasty stuff were in most cases Soviet or Chinese. All the US did was give credits to pay for it.

[glad rag]

brickhistory, the fingers point one way for a reason, the "I" country, as you put it, is, rightfully, running short of friends.

After the US Presidential elections it might well find itself further isolated and a short step, from a pariah state, something no right thinking person would wish.

So what are they to do?

Is it time for social upheaval within Israel to isolate their own religious fanatics and finally put to rest the paranoia of the past and to forge a path of peace with firstly the palestinians as they have done with others already???

[BenThere]

I was speculating on the timing of a possible attack and concluded that if McCain is elected, Bush would trust him to not allow Iranian accession to nuclear weapons, but might feel compelled to take drastic action between the election and Jan. 20 if Obama wins. Just a hunch.

As for Israeli combat range, the presence of bases in Iraq and even logistics and tanker support from US assets in theatre is plausible.

Iran has no friends in the Gulf, and the US hasn't been paid for the perdiem owed its State Department civil servants while unwilling guests of Ahmadinejad and company in 1979-80.

The strategy doesn't need to be to destroy Iran's entire nuclear target set, but to neutralize major Quds/Revguard installations and try to decapitate the ruling regime. An invasion is not in the cards. The people of Iran no longer desire the rule of the mullahs and would be likely to take care of the loose ends themselves. Should the regime survive, could it afford to cut off Hormuz, thus depriving it of its own oil lifeblood? Not if it intends to survive, itself.

I wouldn't go so far as to predict such a scenario, but I think it's more likely than other fantasies I've read on this thread.

[BEagle]

BEags, we're not talking about Iraq. It is an "I" country, but not that one.

Do keep up.

I guess irony (another I word) is lost on Spams....

In any case, Brick, are you sure that the dimwitted Gdubya actually knows the difference between Iran and Iraq? Or Italy... Iceland... Idaho??

An earlier meeting between Tony-the-Poodle and Bush just before Gulf War 2 might clarify things:

“Yo Blair - it’s your buddy G Dubya. How’ya doin’?”

“George. Nice to talk to you. Absolutely”

“Hell, Tiny, what we gonna’ do ‘bout these Iraquois an’ their King Hussein? Seems we need to kick us some butt!”

“George. First we need clear evidence of any Iraqi.....”

“Hell, Tiny. My good buddies of the CBI been gatherin’ plenty of intellectualisatory photographicals. We know what Osama Hussein’s bin up to...”

“Ah yes. Now George. Intelligence. Have your people got any better at that? You told us that there were dozens of Al-Quaeda and Taliban forces still holed up in Afghanistan. That’s not what we’ve found....”

“Afghanistralia? You don’t say? Hell, when I pulled my boys back ‘n sent ‘em to the mountains of Kansas to get more training, why we expected your Marine Corps to go do some serious fightin’. So waddya’ tellin’ me?”

“George. We found nothing. Apart from a few goats with sore bottoms and some posters with rude comments about Queen Victoria..... ”

“Queen Victoria? Is she the new Queen of Englishland?”

“No. When we were last in the North West Frontier, she was the Queen. Actually she was the Empress of India.”

“Really? You don’ say. Was that a while back?”

“Yes. In fact Queen Elizabeth the Second is the daughter of the late Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. She, as Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, married the great grand-son of Queen Victoria, George”

“Yes, Tiny?”

“No - his name was George, George. So was his father’s, George the Fifth, George......”

“Hell, Tiny - ma pappy had thuh same idea! But how come ya didn’t find no Arabistanis? Thought they’d be ten-a-penny over there...”

“Ye-es. Quite. But what proof do you have about Iraq”

“Hell - proof? What’s that? Ma generals say there’s a threat, we go nuke ‘em. Period. Who needs proof?”

“The United Nations?”

“Who?”

[Dan D'air]

cirrusfrance, you may well not be French, but you have certainly developed their proclivity for obfuscation and inaccuracy. It's sad to see that you have immediately resorted to personal insults to try to strengthen your case, so you are now, Sir, on my ignore list. 'Nuff said.

[brickhistory]

Very nice writing, BEags. Perhaps you should add that endeavor to your CV.

But, my point regarding Israel and any suspected chemical weapons is just that. Speculation. As they've not used them on their own people or any neighboring populations, I'm for giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Iraq didn't seem to have that same track record.

I seem to recall the Israeli initial bunch, anyway, had experience with being the end receipent of such things in the past.

Same would go for Israeli nukes. They haven't used them on anyone. Yet.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

glad rag,
the fingers point one way for a reason, the "I" country, as you put it, is, rightfully, running short of friends.

After the US Presidential elections it might well find itself further isolated and a short step, from a pariah state, something no right thinking person would wish.

So what are they to do?

Is it time for social upheaval within Israel to isolate their own religious fanatics and finally put to rest the paranoia of the past and to forge a path of peace with firstly the palestinians as they have done with others already???

Far from it for me to be a cheerleader for Israel. I'm not enamored of everything they've done/do, however, staying alive does seem to be a legitimate goal for me to support.

So, let me get this plain from you. You have no problem with Iran acquiring nuclear weapons?

If so, would you be comfortable with Iran using those weapons on Israel?

Is it your position that Israel 'asked for it?' None of its neighbors have a small part to play in the drama?

Again, a country which very recently shamed the Royal Navy and Britain, and you have no words of condemnation for them?

Interesting.

[glad rag]

So how does this:-

"the fingers point one way for a reason, the "I" country, as you put it, is, rightfully, running short of friends.

After the US Presidential elections it might well find itself further isolated and a short step, from a pariah state, something no right thinking person would wish.

So what are they to do?

Is it time for social upheaval within Israel to isolate their own religious fanatics and finally put to rest the paranoia of the past and to forge a path of peace with firstly the palestinians as they have done with others already???"

Relate to your reply of :-

"Far from it for me to be a cheerleader for Israel. I'm not enamored of everything they've done/do, however, staying alive does seem to be a legitimate goal for me to support.

So, let me get this plain from you. You have no problem with Iran acquiring nuclear weapons?

If so, would you be comfortable with Iran using those weapons on Israel?

Is it your position that Israel 'asked for it?' None of its neighbors have a small part to play in the drama?

Again, a country which very recently shamed the Royal Navy and Britain, and you have no words of condemnation for them?"

Interesting? No you are not.

[brickhistory]

But you don't answer the questions.

Why is that?

[shaky]

If Iran starts airmail deliveries of sunshine to Israel, isn't there going to be a fair amount of overspill into the Palestinian areas and wont they be fairly aggrieved about this.

[TheInquisitor]

I fail to understand the large amount of animosity being directed at Israel, almost universally from Euro-fag lefties. What exactly is their great crime, aside from trying to defend their homeland from continuous threats from their neighbours?

The land they live on was given to them by the UN 60-odd years ago. It was BOUGHT from the Palestinians, and was, at the time, largely barren and infertile (hence the ease with which the Arabs parted with it). The Israelis, however, made a good go of it and made the land productive, at which point (some 20 years later) the Arabs suddenly decided they wanted it back.

Since then, Israel has been invaded, or threatened with invasion, by virtually all of its neighbours, and continues to live under that threat, and the threat of real, organised, well-funded (by most of its Arab neighbours) terrorism on a daily basis. It now faces a country that not only has stated publicly, repeatedly, and most vociferously, its intention to 'wipe Israel off the map', but appears to be working on the means to do so with clandestine haste.

Israel has never invaded any of its neighbours, except when provoked into doing so in necessary self-defence.

Israel does not want any of its neighbours' lands.

Israel has never threatened to wipe any of its neighbours 'off the map'.

Israel has nuclear weapons, but has never used them nor threatened to do so.

Israel HAS occupied 'Palestinian territories' in the past, but has only done so to try and control the endless barrage of terrorist attacks eminating from there (ring any bells - NI, anyone?). It has not attacked the Palestinians without first being provoked, nor has it sought their complete destruction.

Israel is no threat to its neighbours, but Israel's neighbours ARE a huge threat to Israel, and most of them have publicly stated so.

Israel has never denied the right of any of its neighbours to simply exist.

So, PLEASE tell me - exactly WHAT is your problem with Israel, or their possession of nuclear weapons, or their desire to provide security for their citizens to live in (relative) peace within their own borders, or their desire to eliminate a known, publicly stated threat (Iran's nuclear capability) before that threat reaches the stage where nuclear exchange is all but inevitable?

[Wiley]

isn't there going to be a fair amount of overspill into the Palestinian areas and wont they be fairly aggrieved about this.Shakey, sadly, the people making that decision won't pause over that small point. In the minds of these decision makers, (along with the population of Tehran and every other major city in Iran), they'll be martyrs and guaranteed a place in paradise, so their fate won't even be considered before making the decision to press the launch button.

[galaxy flyer]

Wiley

They might be martyrs, but I do suspect they will run out of virgins with the death toll of this operation. :E :E

[effortless]

TheInquisitor

The people of Iran no longer desire the rule of the mullahs and would be likely to take care of the loose ends themselves.

Just like happened in Iraq then.

The land they live on was given to them by the UN 60-odd years ago. It was BOUGHT from the Palestinians, and was, at the time, largely barren and infertile (hence the ease with which the Arabs parted with it).

Hoo eeee we have a live one here! I wonder where that all came from? I'll ignore most of this but if the place was as barren and infertile why then are the Israelis bulldozing so many orchards and olive groves then? This lie that the place was empty, uninhabited and barren has been propagated ad nausium and came as a surprise to the local inhabitants. I say this as a long time supporter of Israel who is exasperated.

May I suggest that you go here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/starttheweek.shtml) and download today’s program.

[Jackonicko]

The Inquisitor,

Just for the sake of accuracy....

When Palestine was partitioned, the Jewish population were allocated slightly more than half of the area, despite constituting slightly less than half of the population. The Arabs were understandably miffed about this, the more so since that Jewish population had been inflated by massive illegal immigration (exceeding the targets set during the Mandate, on which Arab consent had been founded), and since the Jewish state would include the most fertile parts.

The Arabs were stupid enough to go to war in '48, and in doing so lost much of the territory that the UN had allocated to them, though (thanks largely to the Arab legion) they clung on to the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

They did not sell their land then decide they wanted it back 20 years later, after Israel had 'improved it'. They wanted back what was taken from them from the moment it was lost, and they fought and died, and killed (in some appalling acts of terrorism) in an impotent attempt to recover it for the next three decades.

For many years, the Palestinians and their allies stupidly and unreasonably claimed the whole of the former Palestine, did not acknowledge Israel's right to exist, and swore to wipe Israel off the map. Naturally even the 'Eurofag Liberals' tended to take Israel's side, as the Israelis were the citizens of a partial democracy (the most democratic state in the region), who were of European origin like us, and who were under attack by unspeakable totalitarian neighbours and filthy domestic terrorists.

The Israelis took the West Bank in '67, along with Gaza, further expanding the State of Israel by force of arms. But for as long as the Arab side wanted the destruction of Israel, Euroweenies like me felt that Israel was entirely justified in its actions.

But in recent years, even the PLO have dropped their outright demands for the whole of Palestine, and have not even demanded the territory that they were allocated by the UN in 1948.

After the work by Sadat in the 70s, and especially since Oslo, Palestinian demands have been relatively modest, amounting to something that falls short of a return to the pre-68 borders. A non-contiguous Palestinian state comprising Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem would seem to be entirely reasonable and just, and once Israel's right to exist was recognised, the Palestinian side deserved some modest payback.

The US failure to encourage Israel to accept such a solution has led to the intransigence that underlies the present problem. Without US support and subsidies, Israel would be forced to compromise.

Only a handful of nutters would deny that the unique suffering of the Jewish people between 1933-45 did not 'earn' them the right to a state of their own in the Holy Land. That's rather different to having the entire Holy Land as their own exclusive state, however, and the more reasonable might also recognise that the suffering of the Palestinians might perhaps earn them the right to a state of their own on the West Bank, with East Jerusalem as their capital.

I'm not equating the Holocaust with what has happened to the Palestinians since '48, nor am I suggesting for one moment that the Palestinians have an equal moral claim to the former Palestine to that of the Jewish people. But I am suggesting that they have some small claim.

I'd also challenge the idea that Israel was founded on 'purchased land' - ask the survivors of Deir Yassin and elsewhere whether they sold their land - while the claim that Israelis 'made the desert bloom' is also flawed - lateral extraction of water from underneath Palestinian land (for example) blurs the achievement somewhat. And being more efficient farmers than your neighbours does not entitle you to their land, otherwise France would be another English county - an annex to Kent!

[BenThere]

Between The Inquisitor's and Jackonicko's narrative, my belief is that The Inquisitor's has it most right.

Jackonicko, you conveniently ignore the ongoing attacks from Palestinians, the surprise attack wars instigated by various regional Arab powers, and the failure of Palestinians to meet the terms of Oslo or any other arrangements to which they have signed up.

I was once a neutral observer in all this, and I've spent significant time in the Middle East, willing to listen to people, and read the press from both points of view. I concluded long ago that Isreal wants peace and will go more than halfway to achieve it. The Arab/Palestinian side wants not peace, but Israel's demise, and is willing to give very little from that stance. That so many don't see what to any empirical observer is quite obvious is of great mystery to me.

[brickhistory]

However, has Israel done anything to Iran?

Has there ever been an Iran-Israeli war?

Did many, if any of the Palestinians migrate to Iran?

Has Israel ever threatened Iran or Iran's interests?

The plight/fate/end game of the Palestinians and Israel is an endless cycle with each side claiming they're in the right. Both are wrong in my view. What does Iran have to do with the situation?

Yet, I see no one here castigating Iran for the public statements of 'wiping Israel off the map.' Even allowing for the argument that the text of that infamous speech has been mistranslated, the public intentions and policies of the current regime in Tehran have been very clear.

Why on earth would anyone begrudge Israel making a show of force in what I imagine is a way keeping the situation from escalating into mutual mushroom clouds?

Or, if need be, preventing a nation that has publicly threatened to destroy Israel and is acquiring the means to follow through?

Why is that wrong?

[nigegilb]

It is all going to kick off in the next 6 months. The Iranian Govt has had lots of chances, I don't blame Israel for a public flexing of muscles.

Funny how Zanu PM changed tack after the swift visit from POTUS last week.

I fully expect the fun to start soon.

$200 a barrel, ouch, best get used to the idea.

[Jackonicko]

No-one needs to condemn Iran for its lunatic pronouncements about Israel.

Patently we would all (even those of us who are stern critics of the more zionist aspects of Israeli policy) heartily condemn even the idea that Israel should be 'wiped off the map' or 'pushed back into the sea'. Condemnation of such a foul desire goes without saying, surely?

And you have to put Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statements in context. The Iranian's have always been big on horrific sounding but empty, impotent rhetoric (remember what they were going to do to the 'Great Satan') and it would be a mistake to think that if Ahmadinejad says something, that's what he actually intends, means or wants. (And there's some controversy as to what he did say....)

As to the rights and wrongs of the Palestinians and Israelis, it is true that some violence has continued post Oslo, but it would be a fool who denied that there has been a seismic shift in Arab attitudes to Israel since then. Oslo marked the point at which various Palestinian factions publicly and specifically acknowledged Israel's right to exist, remember.

However, Israel has failed to abide by UNSC resolutions, and has failed to honour agreements on settlements on the West Bank. It has been heavy handed and disproportionate in its response to Palestinian violence, and the continued expansion of the settlements, the buidling of the wall and blockades have undermined Arab faith in the process. Israel's continued intransigence (and its failure to ensure that Fatah was able to deliver progress post Oslo) has played into the hands of Hamas and the Arab extremists, some of whom never signed up to Oslo in the first place.

Neither side is wholly in the right, and the Palestinian Authority's failure to control the terrorists is disgraceful, but I'd say that Israel's failure to compromise, and its disproportionate military response has been almost as responsible for the current situation - and we expect better from the Israelis, somehow.

[brickhistory]

Condemnation of such a foul desire goes without saying, surely?


Yet the majority on this thread feel that having a go at Israel for its action regarding Iran is worth 'saying.'

I am not going to go on the hamster wheel of the Israel-Palestine quagmire. Both sides have plenty to feel ashamed over.

I state I have no issue with Israel trying to get Iran to simmer down.

[mr fish]

Jackonicko, nice ,well written argument but the massive illegal immigration bit seems a bit strange given what was happening in europe at the time. Many think the persecution of jews (and others of course) ended with the defeat of germany, sadly this was not the case and pogroms continued against jews returning from death camps and slave labour sites well into the late 40s.
Polish jews in particular were murdered in hundreds, many for the 'crime' of demanding the return of their land,homes and property
As is now widely known, Stalin was also planning his own campaign before his fortunate demise.
I cannot speak for anyone else posting comments here but if i were jewish, i would have left europe and got to palastine one way or another!!

[Lydia Dustbin]

I cannot speak for anyone else posting comments here but if i were jewish, i would have left europe and got to palastine one way or another!!

Mmmm!

The terrorist attacks from Palastine are as Jacko said disgraceful. But if you were living in a country, without an army, without police, suffering military attacks from a very well armed organisation, using the latest US technology, what would you do? Suicide bomber and Hellfire missile, what's the connection? Well they both have the desired effect, they kill people, and both cause 'collateral damage', they cost a lot in either dollars or commitment, two sides are attacking each other, one has money and a military, the other does not. What would you do in your country, if you were faced with an oppressor who had military might, who was 'taking over', and you had no military might? Would you lay down and take it up the ass, or would you fight with any means at your disposal? Just a thought.


Bye the way my posts still seem to be being made invisible by a mod, so if you see this post PLEASE say you do or pm me (even if you disagree), as I just need to know when i am back on line. PM's i have sent have also been made invisible.
Ta!

[Beatriz Fontana]

OK then, to balance, here's something knocking Iran's leadership.

The current president of Iran is a "twelver", someone who believes that the 12th or "hidden" imam (Muhammad al-Mahdi al-Hujjah) will re-appear. The verses suggest that the 12th imam will appear the day before Judgement Day to dish out justice and peace to the Islamic World. But only the Islamic World.

Apparently President ADJ also thinks that the imam's return can be hastened by chaos on earth, you know, war, civil war, injustice, etc. Many Shias and Iranians think this particular view is a bit barking.

[buoy15]

The pre-emptive air strike is probably a decoy anyways
The Israeli Special Forces could probably go in over-night, dismantle it and ship it back before these tossers have said morning prayers - did something similar before ISTR - missile battery (1967)?:ok:
So, how about Tuesday 12th August - coincides with the Grouse shoot;)

[buoy15]

Pprune Mod
I see my 1st post has been removed - Pray why good sir, when most are commenting on it?

Regards b15

[ORAC]

For those that think the other countries in the Gulf would root for Iran in the case of an attack by Israel, think again. Ignoring the whole Sunni v Shia thing, or the Arab v Persian, the whole geopolitics of the area militate against it. The following two articles in one of the leading Arabic daily papers will give an idea of their fears and views of Iran.

Asharq Alawsat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asharq_Al-Awsat): Why El-Baradei Threatened to Resign (http://aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=2&id=13173)

........El-Baradei is witnessing the final moments of the US-Iranian match; so are we, but with mixed feelings. Iran is developing nuclear weapons to target us, rather than Israel; if not by actual use, at least for bargaining purposes. Meanwhile, Israel has the capability of obliterating Iran off the map with the same weapons. We do not want a new war, which would be paid for with civilian lives on many fronts. Preventing Iran from possessing nuclear weapons is clearly a matter of life and death for Israel. Europe supports Israel on this stand and sees itself as a target of Iran's long-range missiles.

The US believes Iran's possession of nuclear weapons would endanger the Gulf oilfields. The Gulf Arabs also want to halt Iran's nuclear weapon development because they are convinced that they would be targeted before Israel.

Hezbollah’s Last Fig Leaf (http://aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=2&id=13177)

..........In consideration of the above, all that would be left would be to create the post of envoy to the Supreme Guide within the Lebanese premiership and Lebanon would be transformed into a division of the Islamic Republic of Iran. This is not sarcasm; this is the reality that is taking shape on the ground.

It is enough to mention here the warning given by Ahmad El Assad, the founder of the Lebanese Option Gathering in protest against the conduct of some individuals affiliated to Iran’s Hezbollah. He said “In spite of our differences of opinion, such behavior is not representative of our values as Shia.” In a warning to Hassan Nasrallah, he said, “Lebanon is still and will always be a diverse place with differing viewpoints. It has not and will never turn into Iran.”......

-------------------------------------------

Asharq Al-Awsat is a major pan-Arabic daily newspaper, with a circulation of 200,000, printed simultaneously in twelve cities on four continents. It was founded in 1978 in London, United Kingdom by Jihad Al Khazen and Adel Bishtawi. It is still based in London, but it is now edited by the Saudi Research and Marketing Ltd. and directed by Saudi prince Salman bin Abdul Aziz, half-brother of the king.[

I have a thought that, if a large number of Israeli aircraft appeared on the radar tube heading east, those on duty in the Saudi Ops rooms would find an urgent need to pop out to wash their hands and deal with some urgent secondary duties........

[West Coast]

big on horrific sounding but empty, impotent rhetoric

From your comfy office this is nothing more than debate 101. Israel doesn't have the luxery you do about being wrong. Don't minimize Dinnerjacket without knowing what's in his heart. Don't pretend you do either.


Many dismissed Hitler's rants in the 1930's as empty, impotent rhetoric.

[Jackonicko]

Dinnerjacket. My my, how amusing.

My admittedly limited knowledge of the Middle East is shaped by a now rather rusty degree in modern history (specialising in the history of the Middle East since 1915), by reading widely, and by talking to mates, including some who now teach at the School of Oriental and African Studies in Russell Square, and others whose profession is based on evaluating military and industrial capabilities in the region.

I'd venture to suggest that I may have a slightly broader view than one might get from reading the right wing US media and listening to paranoid Israeli and neo-con propaganda.

Your point about under-estimating Hitler is interesting and well-made, but even more recently, there are examples of over-estimating threats, and over-stating the threatening intentions of enemy leaders. One only has to go back to the dire warnings of Saddam Hussein's entirely mythical deployable WMD (within 45 minutes), or to Russian intentions in the late 1980s.

There's no doubt that Ahmadinejad has made some outrageous statements, and that if taken at face value, these might be considered extremely threatening. But there are questions as to whether intentions meet rhetoric, and especially as to whether rhetoric could be supported by capability.

[barry lloyd]

I could take this thread slightly more seriously if some the contributors could correctly spell the names of the countries and people they're discussing.
Most people seem to be able to spell Iran properly, but then it's a four-letter word, so that's easy. To those who cannot spell Palestine,Gaza,etc. correctly, I would ask - why? Presumably you have read about this in newspapers and magazines (where they are spelt correctly), which have helped to form your opinion. Even 'The Sun' spells words properly - most of the time!

[effortless]

mr fish

Many think the persecution of jews (and others of course) ended with the defeat of germany, sadly this was not the case and pogroms continued against jews returning from death camps and slave labour sites well into the late 40s.

Certainly and Israel was amongst them. Ask any survivors, if you can find them in Isreal, how they were treated when they arrived. One of the nicknames was "Ash". Auschwitz survivors knew what the reference was. "Exodus" was an absolute fabrication. The US didn't want a huge influx of Jews, Russia and the eastern bloc was still actively anti-semitic and Israelis blamed them for staying in Germany etc.

I do still know survivors, though they are a shrinking group and by and large they are disgusted by those who wrap themselves in the Holocaust banner just as we all know those of our lost and maimed mates who are horrified at the flag wrappers who use their sacrifice for their own ends. I am stretching the analogy a bit but I am a bit raw about it at the moment.

Anyone who listens to Iranian rhetoric must ask who the intended audience is. In common with insecure regimes throughout history, they are speaking to their own population.

I do not want Iran or anyone else to have "The Bomb" but they would almost be derilict in their duty not to acknowledge the fact that almost every border is with someone who already has one or has a mate who has.

Many dismissed Hitler's rants in the 1930's as empty, impotent rhetoric.

Not many did really but this is trotted out daily about anyone we don't like.

[brickhistory]

Dinnerjacket. My my, how amusing.

It's a widely used amusing derivative of the gent's name even here in this forum. Yet you only now choose to be dismissive of it? Right, fair and balanced....

My admittedly limited knowledge of the Middle East is shaped by a now rather rusty degree in modern history (specialising in the history of the Middle East since 1915),

Ooooh, oooh, a history degree! Well, that's it then, case closed.

By the way, it's not that uncommon a degree to possess (hint, look at the pprune name). And how it'd work out for you as an aviation writer? By this logic, you are not qualified to comment on fighters, helicopters, ASW platforms, tankers, et al, the procurement and use thereof, yet you do so.

And for a living.


by reading widely, and by talking to mates, including some who now teach at the School of Oriental and African Studies in Russell Square, and others whose profession is based on evaluating military and industrial capabilities in the region.

The impact is made. There can be no further dissent after one's talked to 'mates' and others.

Or is it possible to arrive at a different conclusion based on the same set of facts? Hmm, different understanding of scholarship. Must be a translation thing.

I'd venture to suggest that I may have a slightly broader view than you'd get from reading the right wing US media and listening to paranoid Israeli and neo-con propaganda.

Well, of course. You're British. You understand how the world works. You aren't relevant, but you understand how it is. Thank you for the attempt at snideness and derision. To quote Maxwell Smart, "Missed it by that much!"

This couldn't be another case of starting something in the Middle East some years back - Balfour, UN Mandate, etc, then just walking away. Again. Wonder how Zimbabwe is progressing?

Your point about under-estimating Hitler is interesting and well-made, but even more recently, there are examples of over-estimating threats, and over-stating the threatening intentions of enemy leaders. One only has to go back to the dire warnings of Saddam Hussein's entirely mythical deployable WMD (within 45 minutes), or to Russian intentions in the late 1980s.

See how fair and balanced you are? You see both sides of the argument. Yet, you don't comment on the fact that Israel can't afford to be wrong regarding a nuclear threat to it.

There's no doubt that Ahmadinejad has made some outrageous statements, and that if taken at face value, these might be considered extremely threatening. But there are questions as to whether intentions meet rhetoric, and especially as to whether rhetoric could be supported by capability.

The four-five thousand centrifuges, the contacts with the Paki nuclear engineer Khan, the total erasure of some nuclear facilities, down to scrubbed earth, none of that could be construed as 'maybe?'

And to continue the 'fair' theme, you know, as a journalist, the one you're supposedly a fan of, then why if Israel makes a show of force with no harm to anyone and says it will protect itself, you condemn it? After all, it's just rhetoric, isn't it?

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Brick,
I freely admit I have never been a great fan of your's or Westies rather slanted vision of the world we all live in, however your last missive is nothing short of childish, crass and extremely rude to boot.

If you are going to argue with the grown up's then please have the decency to act like a grown up :rolleyes:

[brickhistory]

sffp,

I'd venture to suggest that I may have a slightly broader view than you'd get from reading the right wing US media and listening to paranoid Israeli and neo-con propaganda.

I see your point.

[nigegilb]

What snideness and derision from JN, surely not?

Just how long did you do in the military Jacko?

[effortless]

Just how long did you do in the military Jacko?

Is that relevant?

[Jackonicko]

As long as you did in the IDF/AF, I'd imagine, Nige, since VR service doesn't count. How exactly did your own long years on the Herc force (for which I respect and commend you) give you special insight into Middle Eastern affairs? :rolleyes: That's a rhetorical question, Nige, as I would respect your view, as an intelligent chap who may have done staff college, and who must know the region, whether I agreed with it or not.

But aren't we supposed to play the ball, and not the man - the argument, and not its proponent?

In any case, direct personal experience isn't always necessary to have an opinion, surely?


Brick,

I don't recall having condemned Israel's latest bout of sabre rattling. I just question the neocon view that Iran represents a 'clear and present danger' to Israel, based solely on the lunatic ramblings of the Iranian President, which are (as someone pointed out) intended for domestic consumption, and which are part of a long tradition of Iranian empty rhetoric.

I would condemn precipitous pre-emptive action by Israel, because however tempting it may be to remove a potential threat, that would be against international law, and military action must always be justified by a real, meaningful threat (as existed in Afghanistan, but as arguably did not exist in Iraq in 2003).

Otherwise the USA would be lining up to bomb North Korea, Iran and Venezuela and that would be fine and dandy.

As to your anti-British tirade and cheap points about 'walking away' from the Mandate (League of Nations, not UN) and Rhodesia, they're beneath you. Or perhaps you think we should take lessons from the US example of disengagement, as demonstrated in Vietnam, Somalia and the Lebanon - or even Iran? And that's not beneath me, as you don't sink lower than a journo.

[nigegilb]

JN, no worries, just thought you were wearing your history degree a little too obviously on the thread. Nothing particularly wrong with snideness and derision used in low doses!

I am acquainted with an Iraqi Shia, who supported the Iraq invasion but also understands the great game being played out by Persia. Don't think Dinner Jacket is playing it too smartly myself and you could argue that US foreign policy has brought on what could turn out to be a nuclear arms race in the region.

I always have a sneaking admiration for Israeli cojones though!

Cheers,

Nige

[brickhistory]

jacko,

But aren't we supposed to play the ball, and not the man - the argument, and not its proponent?

In any case, direct personal experience isn't always necessary to have an opinion, surely?

exactly. Which is why

My admittedly limited knowledge of the Middle East is shaped by a now rather rusty degree in modern history (specialising in the history of the Middle East since 1915), by reading widely, and by talking to mates, including some who now teach at the School of Oriental and African Studies in Russell Square, and others whose profession is based on evaluating military and industrial capabilities in the region.

I'd venture to suggest that I may have a slightly broader view than one might get from reading the right wing US media and listening to paranoid Israeli and neo-con propaganda.

struck me as not your usual approach.

The US walking away? Absolutely. I claim no moral high ground for my country. edited to add: Only self-interests, just like any other nation.

I say Israel isn't entitled to moral superiority either. But to exist, yeah, I kinda think they have that right.

Iran seems to think otherwise and, by all accounts, is acquiring the means to carry out the rhetoric.

And the thread is back full circle.

[The AvgasDinosaur]

Politics apart militarily I don't doubt that the Israelis have the skill and fire power to carry out the raid into Iran and destroy that nuclear facility. I'm not at all sure they would advertise their intentions in such an obvious way. I think it is a smokescreen for an attack closer to base (Syria ?). The Israelis are cunning and shrewd ( and perhaps a little stealthy) having visited Iraq and Uganda to protect their interests in the past. Why advertise their intentions in this manner. The Iranians can do the maths they know the range of an F-16I ITIRC about 1500 nm with conformal tankage max. Unless the IDF/AF has a stunning trick up its sleeve they are going to require tanking some where along the way and that mitigates against surprise.
Perhaps the stunning trick is a Lavi / Lampyridae hybrid project based on the missing Lavi number 3. Didn't a significant number of MBB technicians from the very top drawer join IAI some years ago. Lavi 1 is in a museum 2,4 & 5 were scrapped. 1 & 2 were stripped to complete number 3 as a technology demonstrator, where is it now? Not too sure on just how the timelines fit for this but it is a thought.
Just my thoughts.
Your comments and observations much appreciated.
Be lucky
David

[BIG MACH]

The Bible produces some interesting insights into the Arab/Israeli conflict. They appear to have been fighting each other for centuries. Both trace their lineage to Abraham. Abraham had a son with the servant girl Hagar and he was called Ishmael. He then had a son with his wife Sarah and he was called Isaac. The Jews were descended from Isaac and the Arabs from Ishmael. It was said of Ishmael, “He shall be a wild man; his hand shall be against every man and every man’s hand against him.” Ishmael and Isaac have been fighting ever since. In AD 135ish the Romans joined the province of Judea/Samaria together with Galilee to form a new province Syria Palaestina. The word “Palaestina” was a reference to the Philistines, the arch enemies of the Israelites from the days of Moses. Rome had been fighting Jewish rebels and named Judea “Palaestina” as a sleight to the Jews.

I doubt that Carter or Blair will solve a problem that has several centuries of history behind it.

On the question of Iran, I do not believe that the current bout of sabre rattling will develop into conflict. The Iranians are not Arabs. However, history suggests that another Arab Israeli war is inevitable.

[West Coast]

Jacko

How does all that edumakation qualify you to know if an individual is slewing innocent enough death threats or real, to be believed death threats? You're damning a country based on what you learned a long ago time in Uni, surely between protesting a cause de jour.

I guess I don't understand how knowing some Prof's in academia as you trumpet somehow allows you a greater insight.

It really is black and white. Either he's bluffing or he's not. You, me and Israel differ in how we assess verbalized threats of destruction.

You can be wrong in your analysis all day long without consequence, Israel can only be wrong once.

[PPRuNe Radar]

Most people seem to be able to spell Iran properly, but then it's a four-letter word, so that's easy. To those who cannot spell Palestine,Gaza,etc. correctly, I would ask - why? Presumably you have read about this in newspapers and magazines (where they are spelt correctly)

Here's your big chance Barry ... let's see the correct spellings in the alphabet of the countries you are talking about :ok: The Western world's interpretation will always be a bastardised version.

[microlight AV8R]

Take a look here.....

J-10 Multirole Fighter Aircraft - SinoDefence.com (http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/j10.asp)

Perhaps acquired for a bit of reverse engineering?

[TheInquisitor]

Effortless, thank you for your link earlier in the thread; however, having examined the URL, since when have the terms "BBC" and "Factual" appeared in the same sentence (except with a negative modifier inbetween?)

What would one expect from that institution, anyway? They are, by their own admission, a bunch of Jew-hating pinko lefties, afterall.... BBC confesses bias on religion, politics (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52574)

JN,

I would condemn precipitous pre-emptive action by Israel, because however tempting it may be to remove a potential threat, that would be against international law, and military action must always be justified by a real, meaningful threat

No, it would not be illegal. The doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence has long been enshrined into international law. This was done specifically to counter exactly the kind of threat ArmyDinnerjacket has made. In fact, IMHO, this is the most clear-cut case in modern times of justification for a pre-emptive strike. Let's summarise:

1. ArmyDinnerjacket says "Israel will be wiped off the map".
2. ArmyDinnerjacket starts building nuclear weapons.

It doesn't get any clearer than that.

You (and many others) claim that "Oh well, he didn't really mean it" - that IMHO is a bogus argument; whether he meant it or not is irrelevant, he said it, and that's all that counts. Under English law, one can be given a custodial sentence for making "Threats to Kill" - there is no requirement to prove that the threat is real, or to wait and see if it is carried out, just that it was made. In fact, the pivotal point is whether or not the victim believes the threat, since the true intentions of the threatener are, in a legal sense at least, indeterminable.

One last point - if it were your country, and your children he was threatening, would you be so quick to give him the benefit of the doubt?

[jayteeto]

A valid point..... If S Ireland were threatening us with armageddon and we were not 100% sure it was a bluff, what would we be saying now?
The Israelis are certainly not innocents in the art of aggressor, but the constant threat of an enemy who would not be satisfied with simple defeat, eradication only please, certainly concentrates the mind. My viewpoint is simple here, but the Israelis see their options as simple also......

[ORAC]

The Middle East Quarterly: Tactical Hudna and Islamic Intolerance (http://www.meforum.org/article/1925)

[ORAC]

A Year to Stop Iran (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/2212934/Israel-has-a-year-to-stop-Iran-bomb%2C-warns-ex-spy.html)

Guardian: Shadow of war looms as Israel flexes its muscle (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/29/israelandthepalestinians.middleeast)

......What is clear is that the push inside the Israeli establishment for a strike is not being driven by the timetable of Iran's mastery of the technical aspects alone, but by geopolitical considerations. That point was reinforced by Bar last week when he identified a window of opportunity for a strike on Iran - ahead of the November presidential election in the United States which could see Barack Obama take power, and possibly engage with Syria and Iran. An Obama presidency would close that window for Israel, says Bar.

'The support is almost unanimous for this in Israel. One hundred percent. I don't think there is anybody within Israel who sees Iran's threats as rhetoric. So the question is, when do we reach that bridge?' he said, adding that the West is naive to believe that any kind of negotiation will work. 'The only thing that can stop Israel's intent [to bomb] would be extremely robust steps on the part of the West - a blockade of Iranian refined oil, something that would indicate that steps were meant to force regime change. Since that is not on the cards, only bombing Iran will work.

'If it's an Israeli attack they will put pressure on Iran's Arab neighbours to respond to the problem also. It will be counter-productive for Iran to launch a major attack on Israel.

'So they will launch a few rockets at us; that is not devastating for Israel,' he said with a shrug. Israel's case, as put by Bar, is that 'most of the Arab Middle East will side with the hope that Israel does the job and not the US. And make no mistake that they all want the job done. They will condemn it in public of course and then get on with their lives,' he said.

Har added that there would probably be another war with Lebanon - 'a month or two months, that is as long as the Middle East has wars for. We can easily cope with that. That's the nature of life in this region. We will set the Iranian programme back and yes, then we will need to come and take it out of existence again after that timeline. There will be no total conclusion, I hesitate to call it the "final solution", but there are no such solutions.'........

[effortless]

The Inquisitior

Effortless, thank you for your link earlier in the thread; however, having examined the URL, since when have the terms "BBC" and "Factual" appeared in the same sentence (except with a negative modifier inbetween?)

Well of course we all experience the resources available to us in different ways. For my part I tend to read and listen to almost anything I can in order to get an idea of what is going on in the world. However I think that if you had indeed listened to the program, you may have found that the contributors are quite varied and eminent in their fields. I have heard fairly right wing US academics there explaining the neocon view.

[West Coast]

you may have found that the contributors are quite varied and eminent in their fields

Have you factored in bias?

[maxter]

Westie - "Have you factored in bias?"

I think that was his point. They have the right wing 'neo-con' variety as well as the left-wing 'huggy fluffies'.

Just clap and cheer the one you follow and shake your head at the bias and blindness of the other. Easy really. Bias is very much in the eye of the beholder as I 'see it'.:ok:

I note, on another tack, that none of the self confessed 'right brigade' ever nominated what they view as a reliable news source when I asked the question many moons ago. They can be quick to denigrate BBC etc as biased but I assume they were not prepared to put their chosen sources to the same scrutiny from the 'huggy fluff' side. Unless it is Fox then I could undertand their reluctance.:E

Brick did make a sensible suggestion that they all have some bias & we just weed out the bias but BBC et al do not seem to get even that option. The usual cry from the 'right' is that if it was on the BBC it is wrong, no analysis necessary.:ugh:

[brickhistory]

The usual cry from the 'right' is that if it was on the BBC it is wrong, no analysis necessary

Ummmm, didn't the BBC's own IG or the equivalent admit to this being the case?

The answer is yes, by the way. And you, the British taxpayer, get to pay for it.

Fine by me as it's not my government or my taxes, but I prefer the marketplace determine what bias fills the airwaves and stays transmitting, not the government.

[NP20]

Fine by me as it's not my government or my taxes, but I prefer the marketplace determine what bias fills the airwaves and stays transmitting, not the government.

Living in the US for a little over 8 months now, I've never been more sure of the importance of the BBC, an organisation that produces quality broadcasting, from its news gathering (second to none IMHO), to documentaries such as Planet Earth, to the superb production values of Top Gear.

I am a big fan of US comedies (Seinfeld, Frasier) and drama (The Sopranos, probably the best drama series ever made, ever!), but the news organisations seem to have more than a whiff of bias about them and offer too much opinion, not enough news. Would Fox News/MSNBC report on bias on their own channel - I doubt it.

As for the marketplace determining the bias, is it healthy for corporations to dictate the news agenda on their channels? Its bad enough in the UK where Rupert Murdoch owns a couple of newspapers, and absolutely appalling when he says that he hasn't decided which party his papers will support in a general election ('it was The Sun wot won it' etc etc; though I believe that its more a case of a shrewd businessman backing the likely winner). Would US TV companies conduct an investigation into pharmaceutical giants at the risk of losing the ad revenue (BTW WTF is Restless Leg Syndrome)? I doubt it, but am happy to be shown otherwise. The good old Beeb was able to do just that, with its programme on GSK and the anti-depressant Seroxat, free from the threat of losing a cheque from drug companies.

A mark of the BBC's independence is that you can guarantee that the UK government of the day will accuse it (the BBC) of bias (see Norman Tebbit on the right, and Alaistar Campbell on the left). On the whole, the licence fee is money well spent, and I'll be happy to pay it when I return to Blighty.

Anyway, I'm off as 'Lewis' is about to start on PBS...

[effortless]

Fine by me as it's not my government or my taxes

Not exactly; I can choose not to pay the license fee and to use the internet and radio for news and DVD etc for entertainment. The BBC is certainly not run by the government though they do decide how much money it gets. Every government since I could read has complained that the BBC is biased against them. They must have got somethjing right then.

I have the priviledge of being exposed to the mass media of several nations and Radio 4 does seem unique to me

[West Coast]

The BBC is certainly not run by the government though they do decide how much money it gets.

A rose by any other name....

[Arcanum]

I'm generally not one for conspiracy theories, however one of the thoughts in the commodity market at the moment is that an attack by Israel is more likely before the presidential election, not less.

The theory goes that the recent National Intelligence Estimate on Irans nuclear capability has tied the hands of the current US administration with respect to a strike in the near term. However, if Israel were to launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran then the US could assist in the aftermath. This would bring the 'war on terror' clearly back in to US public focus (rather than the economy) and the US public is more likely to support a Republican presidential nominee than a Democrat in times of conflict.

From the Israeli perspective the current Republican administration is more likely to support a pre-emptive strike than Obama if he gets in, so their options narrow somewhat after the US election.

Therefore a strike in September/October is likely as it could suit both Israel and the current US administration.

[ORAC]

Kuwaiti Daily Reveals: Iran Building Secret Nuclear Reactor (http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD200608)

On July 29, 2008, the Kuwaiti daily Al-Siyassa reported that, according to "highly reliable sources," Iranian authorities had begun construction of a secret nuclear reactor in the Al-Zarqan region close to the city of Ahwaz in southwest Iran, on the Iran-Iraq border.

The paper said that according to sources, Iran was working to distance its nuclear installations from international oversight. The English version of the report, published in the Kuwaiti Arab Times, said, "Disclosing [that] Tehran directed international A-bomb inspectors to other places, sources warned [that] the project poses a very serious threat to international security."

Also according to the sources, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) did not know about this site at all, since it was not included in negotiations with Iran in Geneva held in early July.

According to the report, the sources said that during 2000-2003, Iran expropriated the lands and homes of thousands of Arab citizens from the Al-Zarqan region, destroying homes of thousands of Arab citizens from the Al-Zarqan region.

Destroyed homes, fields, orchards, and wells, and built a three-meter-high wall around the project site, which allegedly measures hundreds of kilometers.

The report also said that "the construction of the reactor began with the laying of a pipeline for fresh water from the [nearby] KarounRiver to the site, and the expansion of the Al-Zarqan power station."

Also, the sources said that "the construction works seem to be routine and do not arouse attention, but the tight security around the region is what arouses suspicions regarding the nature of the work." They added that the site is guarded by Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) personnel, reflecting its importance and sensitivity.

Following is a summary of the Al-Siyassa report, [1] and from its English [2] version in the Kuwaiti English-language daily Arab Times, which was also published July 29, 2008.

IRGC Commander's Letter to Construction Company: Maintain Complete Secrecy

In its report, Al-Siyassa included a letter dated April 7, 2008 from the office of the assistant of IRGC commander in Al-Ahwaz city Brig. Hassan Jalaliyan, marked "highly confidential," to Mohammed Kayafir, manager of the Mehab Qudus Company for Construction and Supervision, which is building the reactor. The following is a translation of the letter:

"From the IRGC Commander in the city of Al-Ahwas to the director in charge at the Mehab Qudus company for Construction and Supervision Mr. Mohammed Kayafir

"Re: The nuclear reactor at Al-Zarqan

"Greetings,

"I thank you for the good services of the Mehab Qudus company, and at the same time I must remind you of the following items:

"1. All construction materials must be transported from the warehouses to the construction site in top secrecy.

"2. As part of the doctrine of caution, we reiterate yet again that during the transport of all required materials, you must ensure that this [transport] does not arouse the suspicions of any citizen in the region through which you are moving.

"3. In general, it is absolutely forbidden to hire any Arabic speakers or any citizen from Khozestan in the framework of the 'Al-Zarqan Nuclear Reactor' construction project. You must ensure that all manpower, including the driver, the accountant, the warehouse manager, the laborer, the technician, or the guard, comes from the northern provinces.

"In conclusion, we say yet again that all the construction work in this project must be carried out under absolute secrecy.

"From the aide to IRGC commander in the city of Al-Ahwaz, Hassan Jalaliyan."...................

[West Coast]

ORAC
You trying to drive the price of oil up today?

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Now allow me to approach this with a cynic's point of view:

"Re: The nuclear reactor at Al-Zarqan"!

Would you really, really ever send a letter with that header when you're trying to keep your super secret nuclear reactor.... well, secret? Surely a letter entitled "Re: Project Zahabubi" or something....

Smacks of a kipper to me...

[ORAC]

A View from The Gulf....This is a Saudi correspondent, writing in an Arab journal - and it got past the censors and into print...

Bomb Iran Now, Let the Chips Fall Where They May (http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD202608)

In his August 4, 2008 column in the liberal Arab e-journal Elaph, Saudi columnist Saleh Al-Rashed argued that the Gulf states should urge the West to attack Iran before it acquires nuclear weapons.

Following are excerpts from the column: [1]

A Nuclear Iran is Like a Nuclear Bin Laden

"'One cannot avoid the inevitable' - this adage came to mind when I read the pronouncement by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps commander Mohammad 'Ali Ja'fari, who said: 'My country is easily capable of closing the Straits of Hormuz, the main passageway for oil freighters, if the country is attacked due to its nuclear program.'

"In my estimation, confronting this country, which is trying to gain the time necessary to acquire nuclear weapons, is unavoidable. The possession of nuclear weapons by a state like Iran, which is ideological to the core, is more or less like Osama bin Laden having a nuclear bomb. They are two of a kind. Despite the difference in their turbans and in their religious beliefs, the end result is the same.

"Perhaps it is our bad luck that we [i.e. Saudi Arabia] and the Gulf states would be the first to suffer from a military confrontation with Iran and from its response, and the problem would become even more grave if Iran succeeded in closing the Straits of Hormuz, as the IRGC commander threatened. But our situation with Iran is like that of the sick man who refuses to have his illness treated with cauterization. Yes, the pain of the burning is horrible, but this malady can only be treated through this military confrontation -cauterization.

"History has taught us that ideological countries only pay heed to victory over their ideology… They never accept any halfway situation, even when they find themselves on the brink of disaster."

"Confrontation Is The Solution"; "The Absolute Priority Must Be Our Strategic Security in the Gulf"

"Confrontation is the solution, and there is no solution but confrontation. The game of the carrot and the stick played by the U.S. and E.U. will be to no avail.

"At present, we are suffering from two things: Iran's attempts [to gain] regional hegemony, and its attempts to impose its influence via its sectarian allies - the fifth column of Arab Shi'ite fundamentalists. Imagine what Iran's influence, hegemony, and fifth column would be like if Iran had a nuclear bomb.

"Perhaps it is a strange coincidence that, this time around, our strategic interests coincide with those of Israel. The regime of the mullahs in Iran is our enemy, and at the same time it is an enemy not just of Israel, but of world peace and security.

"I know that the Arab demagogues stand together indiscriminately with anyone who is against Israel and America. But we need to not be swept away by these demagogues as we were in the past. This time, the absolute priority must be our strategic security in the Gulf, which is threatened by Iran - even if this comes at the expense of the Palestinian cause.

"In politics, nothing prevents you from allying with the devil for the sake of your interests. This is what confronting the Iranian danger - which is close - demands of us. This issue, in my estimation, cannot suffer delay or hesitation. Every passing day benefits Iran.

"Thus, we need to push the world powers, and especially the U.S. and the E.U., towards military confrontation to neutralize the Iranian enemy, whatever the cost, before the nuclear bomb makes it too late - even if it is against the will of the Arabs of the north."

[skippedonce]

"History has taught us that ideological countries only pay heed to victory over their ideology… They never accept any halfway situation, even when they find themselves on the brink of disaster."

and being a Saudi, he should know first-hand...

[pr00ne]

Hhhmm...........

...."argued that the Gulf states should urge the West to attack Iran before it acquires nuclear weapons. "

How about the "Gulf states" actually put to some use that multitude of advanced weapons they have been steadily accumulating over recent years and attack Iran themselves if they think it so important?

Or are their fleets of advanced F-16's etc all just for show?

[Captain_djaffar]

CirrusF (http://www.pprune.org/members/154670-cirrusf) ...............i can only agree with you.
You highlightened a strong reason here....

[Modern Elmo]

Or are their fleets of advanced F-16's etc all just for show?

Just for show.

Also, one tends to think that the oil sheiks think they're buying Anglo-Ami influence and protection by buying big ticket hardware from the infidels.

And the A-rub chiefs might be right about that.

Plus, if the UK pulls out of the Persian Gulf, less big big big oil money might get deposited in City of London banks. What else holds up the English economy nowadays?

[Modern Elmo]

To destroy the uranium centrifuge halls at Natanz alone, analysts have argued, might require up to 80 5,000lb penetrating bombs dropped in almost simultaneous pairs to allow the second bomb to burrow through the crater of the first.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/29/israelandthepalestinians.middleeast (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/29/israelandthepalestinians.middleeast)

Well, other anonemouse experts argue that only 50 8,000 pound penetrating bombs would be needed. So there, probelm simplified.

[Utrinque Apparatus]

Proone

You obviously haven't worked in the field with the GCC Armed Forces. A high proportion of them are very proficient and many of their "young Turks" now coming through the ranks would not be out of place in our Armed Forces.

They are motivated, educated and well trained despite the cultural barriers to what we perceive as the lack of a western work ethic. The politics of, and ruling cliques in, the region of course mitigate against rash military action, unlike that engaged in by Blair and his sycophantic New labour posturing liars, trying to strut the world stage and giving us a bad name in the process

[pr00ne]

Utrinque Apparatus,

Which all makes sense APART from the fact that I was commenting on a member of the Gulf States who was encouraging the US and the West to bomb Iran, so your post makes NO sense........................

I made no comment on the proficiency or otherwsie of the armed forces in the region, just wish they'd fight their own wars.

[glad rag]

BBC NEWS | Special Reports | Tehran - A tale of two cities? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7612319.stm)

[TheShadow]

The Israeli strike (air/ground (spec forces) and fifth columnists (not journos/they're not invited unless embedded)) is planned to take place on 18 Dec (early evening) because of the cultural significance of that date. Conventional (deep penetrating B61-11's off F-15's) and bio, but not nuclear. It also coincides with a major upgrade date for the main facility.... and a change-over of key personnel.
The current Iranian Calendar year is AP 1387 (AP = Anno Persico/Anno Persarum = Persian year). You add 622 to the Iranian calendar to arrive at a Gregorian date. The date is known to far too many people to remain a secret for much longer.

[skydiver69]

I've just come back from my fifth visit to Iran and would say that the Iranians are preparing for an air attack judging from the number of new anti aircraft guns I saw around the place. The new Iman Khomeini airport now has a large soil berm around the perimeter c/w anti aircraft guns. In addition new guns have appeared on the base of the mountain ridge just off the Tehran - Keraj highway. These appear to be protecting two large round radar domes up on the ridge. My last visit was three years ago when none of these defence were in place.

[ORAC]

Now I know that you know that I know, therefore......

U.S. Deploys Radar, Troops To Israel (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3744319&c=MID&s=LAN)

U.S. European Command (EUCOM) has deployed to Israel a high-powered X-band radar and the supporting people and equipment needed for coordinated defense against Iranian missile attack, marking the first permanent U.S. military presence on Israeli soil.

More than a dozen aircraft, including C-5s and C-17s, helped with the Sept. 21 delivery of the AN/TPY-2 Transportable Radar Surveillance/Forward Based X-band Transportable (FBX-T), its ancillary components and some 120 EUCOM personnel to Israel's Nevatim Air Base southeast of Beersheba, said sources here and in Stuttgart, Germany.

Among the U.S. personnel is at least one representative from the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), though officials said the agency had little to no say in the deployment decision. MDA involvement has been confined to providing equipment and advice on technical aspects of its deployment, one official said.

The Raytheon-built FBX-T system is the same phased-array radar that was deployed to northern Japan with the U.S. Pacific Air Forces (PACAF) in 2006. The high-powered, high-frequency, transportable X-band radar is designed to detect and track ballistic missiles soon after launch. Its ancillary gear included cooling systems, generators, perimeter defense weaponry, logistics supplies and dozens of technicians, maintenance specialists and security forces to operate and defend the U.S. installation.

EUCOM has repeatedly deployed troops and Patriot air defense batteries for joint exercises and Iraq-related wartime contingencies, but has never before permanently deployed troops on Israeli soil. A EUCOM spokesman declined to comment. MDA officials referred to the U.S. State Department, which did not provide comment by press time.

Israeli Psyops Fuel Angst Over Iran Attack (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3734943&c=FEA&s=CVS)

TEL AVIV - Israel is stoking suspicions of a military attack on Iran in an elaborate and finely balanced psychological-operations campaign meant to deter Iranian nuclear efforts and inspire more Western sanctions on Tehran.

Experts and official sources here say airstrikes are not imminent.

Yet the psyops effort, executed unilaterally and in concert with Washington, has fostered the opposite perception, which along with Iranian intransigence on nuclear issues have put a jittery region even more on edge. Some experts say the campaign may ultimately prove counterproductive.

"Our enemies are afraid we will strike in 2009. But unlike our image, we are not going to war," a senior Israeli intelligence officer told reporters here recently. "But we and they are preparing for war. … Below the bar of war, there are events that are happening. Both sides can engage in activities short of war which may cause escalations that could lead to war.".....

[guiseppe]

So,

IRAN is implying that they will ultimately cause a spike in the price of oil. Does anyone have any verifiable info on how their production is going.

My financial guy had a great point in that Iran is importing most of their refined petroleum from S.A.. Their exports are only bulk crude. Everyone has crude....it's the refining capacity that is the choker.

One of the most mobile sectors of labour is in oil. I don't think Iran has any actual infrastructure / expertice to support a world class oil industry...left?

I would agree that the Isrealis cannot let the question go unanswered. I do not , however, believe for 1 second that the US foreign policy is fickle enough to sway on whether there is an attack or not, based simply on Obama or McCain.

There is another couple of years left in this saga.

FWIW!

[skydiver69]

Although Iran is self sufficient in terms of crude oil production it only has enough refinery capacity to meet about 60% of its domestic requirements. It has a 5 year plan to build new refineries in order to double capacity but this appears to have inadequate funding. Iran Focus*-*Iran falling short of oil refining ambitions (http://www.iranfocus.com/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11618)

Last time the government cut the subsidy on fuel riots followed so the country appears to be vulnerable to changes in fuel supply.

[Modern Elmo]

I've just come back from my fifth visit to Iran and would say that the Iranians are preparing for an air attack judging from the number of new anti aircraft guns I saw around the place. The new Iman Khomeini airport now has a large soil berm around the perimeter c/w anti aircraft guns. In addition new guns have appeared on the base of the mountain ridge just off the Tehran - Keraj highway. These appear to be protecting two large round radar domes up on the ridge.

Anti-Air artillery wouldn't be that effective. Money spent on those guns is mostly wasted, except to make the Iranian populace feel better.

[StbdD]

theshadow

The Israeli strike (air/ground (spec forces) and fifth columnists (not journos/they're not invited unless embedded)) is planned to take place on 18 Dec (early evening) because of the cultural significance of that date. Conventional (deep penetrating B61-11's off F-15's) and bio, but not nuclear. It also coincides with a major upgrade date for the main facility.... and a change-over of key personnel. The current Iranian Calendar year is AP 1387 (AP = Anno Persico/Anno Persarum = Persian year). You add 622 to the Iranian calendar to arrive at a Gregorian date. The date is known to far too many people to remain a secret for much longer.

Care to give odds on your specific planned attack date (18 Dec 2008)? Assuming of course that you have anything to wager.

[Lyneham Lad]

Disinformation or fact? On Aviation Week's (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/SAM12108.xml&headline=U.S.%20Sources:%20Iran%20Buying%20Russian%20SA-20s) web site today.

Senior U.S. government officials independently confirm that Iran is now "on contract" for the Russian SA-20 strategic SAM system, irrespective of Kremlin protestations to the contrary.

Tehran's deployment of such a system would mark a step-up in capability, and considerably improve the country's ability to defend its controversial nuclear facilities where the West remains concerned that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons capability.

"The Iranians are on contract for SA-20," says a government official. "We've got a huge set of challenges in the future that we've never had (before). We've been lulled into a false sense of security because our operations over the last 20 years involved complete air dominance and we've been free to operate in all domains," he adds.

The proliferation of so-called double-digit surface-to-air missile systems - such as the Almaz Antey SA-20 (S-300PMU1/S-300PMU2) - poses an increasing threat to non-stealthy aircraft, and will force changes in tactics and operational planning. The SA-20 has an engagement envelope of up to 150 kilometers; and Iran may be signed up for the S-300PMU-2 variant of the system.

Russia could use Belorussia as the route for a sale, allowing it to deny any direct involvement, says a U.S. official.

Still, it would likely take the Iranian armed forces some time, as much as 22 months, to become proficient in the operation of the SA-20. However, any deal would almost certainly cover training support of the system in the interim.

[CirrusF]

Just more US geopolitical waffle and posturing.

Even if Iran did succeed in developing a viable and DELIVERABLE nuclear weapon, and even if they GENUINELY had the political will to launch and deliver it, what could they possibly gain? Their population centres would be wiped out by massive US/British/French and even Russian retaliation.

Iran's own geopolitical waffle and posturing is just a response to domestic inquietude at US/Israel policies in the region.

If we want Iran to give up their nuclear pretensions, we must first persuade Israel to give up hers.

[brickhistory]

Really?

I've not seen anything where Britain/France/US/Russia have obligated themselves to nuking them that nuke Israel.

Did I miss the memo?

You are far more certain of the actions of those countries than I am.

If you were Israeli, would you be willing to bet your life on it?

After all, Hitler said he'd stop with Austria, er, Czechoslovakia, er, Poland...

By the way, I don't believe Israel has nuclear pretensions.

[CirrusF]

Really?

I've not seen anything where Britain/France/US/Russia have obligated themselves to nuking them that nuke Israel.

Did I miss the memo?

You are far more certain of the actions of those countries than I am.

If you were Israeli, would you be willing to bet your life on it?

After all, Hitler said he'd stop with Austria, er, Czechoslovakia, er, Poland...

By the way, I don't believe Israel has nuclear pretensions.


Blimey. You really do live in blissful ignorance over in the USA don't you?
Israel and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction)

Given that Israel has nuclear weapons, and most probably (even by US admission) a chemical and biological capability, wouldn't you be a bit worried if you and your family lived in a nearby country. Especially has Israel has repeatedly used pre-emptive strikes to "defend" itself?

Israel is far from being a stable democracy. It does not even score particularly highly on the Economist's index of "democracy" - being classified as a "flawed democracy" http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/Democracy_Index_2007_v3.pdf
And scoring well below all other nuclear armed countries (and formerly nuclear armed countries such as RSA that have been persuaded to give up their WMD pretensions). There is little doubt that much of Israel's domstic appartheid policies are driven by a need to maintain jewish demographic supremacy over the arab vote in order to maintain their "democratic" status on the world stage - eg construction of the wall through along demographic demarcation lines.

[ORAC]

Strikes me someone needs to buy a dictionary - to expose their pretensions towards understanding the english language......

[Lyneham Lad]

By the way, I don't believe Israel has nuclear pretensions.

CirrusF and Orac,

Maybe the US is not the 'irony-free' zone that you appear to be assuming :cool:

[ORAC]

Times today, can't find a link, so here are some of the content. Consider this in the context of Obama's chances of re-election if Iran gets the bomb and either demonstrates it, or even uses it.......

"Iran could have nuclear bomb 'within 6 months'

Iran may be just six months away from developing a nuclear bomb despite international attempts to thwart the programme through sanctions.....

The latest report by inspectors from the IAEA concludes that Iran has not only boosted production but upgraded the level of enrichment from 3.5% to almost 20% and has installed more sophisticated centrifuges which it is moving to the bunker in Qom, apparently to protect them from airstrikes.....

"We believe if Iran broke out now they could have a bomb in six months", said David Albright, a former weapons inspector who now runs the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington.....

Greg Jones, a defence analyst at the Nonproliferation Policy Education Centre, calculates that Iran could now produce a bomb within 62 days......

A new report by the Bipartisan Policy Centre, a think tank set up by US Senators warns: "The Islamic Republic of Iran could be a de facto nuclear power before 2011 is over".....

"I'm very alarmed", said Nicholas Burns, America's former chief negotiator on Iran. "I've read many IAEA reports over the years and they are very carefully written by civil servants. This time they are clearly ringing the alarm bells"......

Burns believes military intervention should be on the table. "The latest report makes clear Iran is one of the top two or three challenges facing the Obama administration", he said.

U.S. Quietly Supplies Israel With Bunker-Busting Bombs (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/24/world/us-quietly-supplies-israel-with-bunker-busting-bombs.html)

'China will not stop Israel if it decides to attack Iran' (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/china-will-not-stop-israel-if-it-decides-to-attack-iran-1.385950)

[The Sultan]

ORAC

When Reagan cut and ran from Lebanon after 241 Americans were killed he rewarded the masterminds behind it (Iran) by supplying them weapons. If Iran gets the bomb, they will not dare to use it so they are still impotent, but it would deserve a mention at the Reagan library as another achievement of his adminstration (put it next to the Olly North shrine).

The Sultan

[SASless]

Sultan....that is the simplest (in the British usage of the word) explanation of the attempt by the Reagan Administration to gain the release of hostages I have ever heard.

You omitted a small thing called the iran/Iraq War, the Civil War in Lebanon, the kidnapping and murder of a fair number of people by Terror groups, and a host of other issues that surrounded that series of events.

Having the acquaintance of Ollie North, Netanyahu, and some others that were involved in that affair....allows me to know that you not only do not know what you are talking about....but you don't even know what you don't know. What's worse....it would be a Fool's Errand to even try to explain it to you.

Just why do you think Army Dinner Jacket and company would not either set off....or provide a nuke to a Terrorist Group for their use...should the Iranians ever cobble one the things together?

Pray tell....do you have an inside covert source that provided you with that gem of insight?

Or....perhaps....you just sat down and figgered it all out for yerself this morning over coffee?



Cirrus,

You make what could be a rather fatal miscalculation in your logic....you assume you are dealing with folks who think rationally at all times...and in all matters. That simply isn't the case with the Iranian Regime extant. They seek Martyrdom and see dying in the pursuit of their sick and warped dream as being the highest honour. Attempting to negotiate with folks like that is very similar to doing the same with a Woman with PMS. You just cannot count on things following the hoped for path if these Nutters ever get the Bomb!

In fact....my money would bet on them just by Golly deciding to light off one the Sun Bright Flash Bulbs the second they think they can bring the downfall of the Infidel societies in the West. If they wind up back in tents in the desert....breeding Goats and Camels....it would allow them to live out their fantasies of being back in the Dark Ages...and free of Infidels.

[rh200]

but you don't even know what you don't know

Your not related to the ol Rumstud by any chance:p.

:( Sorry SAS couldn't help myself and wanted to inject a bit of humor.

[500N]

Not sure what the ruling clerics are like in terms of being hell bent on wiping out the infidels, unlike the President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad but at least they hold him in check to an extent.

They have certainly publicly curtailed him recently.
.

[The Sultan]

What hostages are you talking about? Not the embassy people as Iran held them to get Reagan elected. They release them the day he took over. If it was to the few kidnapped victims afterwords well they would have been a small additional cost to what should have been a see you in fifty years response. Instead we ran and gave them weapons so we could back despots in South America.

As to Netenyahoo he is only surviving off his true hero brother's legacy, He could not care less on the lives and treasure the US spends that we would not have to if Rabin had not been shot in the back by a coward (which seemed to be advantageous to one party). Sas which party was that again? Who runs it now?

Letting Net try to influence next year elections is on par with with Iran supporting Reagan. While we can not fix the 80's we can tell Net to f' off and defend himself.

As to the elections. Libya has oil b'es!.

The Sultan

[coineach]

21th century weapons -v- 1st century fundamentalists????

Reminds me of the 1970s in Vietnam where the US were beaten by an army on bicycles. Ooopppsss .............

[cazatou]

Back in 1969 I paid a second visit to Tehran whilst on 84 Sqn. BOAC provided handling facilities and an English speaking Guide to assist us during our stay.

We were aware, and I am sure that our Guide was aware that we were aware, that our Guide was a Colonel in the Iranian Secret Police.

On checking out from the Hotel our Navigator found that he had mislaid his wallet - probably whilst he was "on the Throne" prior to departure. We raised the matter with our Guide who presented the Hotel Staff with his Warrent Card. The Staff went grey and the Manager dispatched people all over the Hotel to search for the missing wallet. Within 10 minutes the Navigators wallet was found and returned to its owner.

Oddly enough the wallet had more money in it than it had contained when it was lost!!

[mini]

Gentlemen, the scenario here is that the Iranians wish to build a nuclear device.

Forget the propaganda about wiping Israel off the map etc. They aren't planning on using it.

They are far more sophisticated than many here are crediting them... :sad:

They get the bomb and you have to talk & concede. That is the real fear.

Ultimately its a diplomatic advantage/issue.

Preventing (delaying) them getting there is a diplomatic calculus exersize... which must consider all options. Israel's tail will wag the US dog once again I fear.

Some day, the rest of the world, tiring of the economic fallout from special interests in this region will say sod the lot of you.

[SASless]

Reminds me of the 1970s in Vietnam where the US were beaten by an army on bicycles.

Reminds me of a couple of wars between mere Colonials and the British Army with German allies....where the Common Man won the day with French help of all things.

Then not so long later....a Tennessee Redneck and a bunch of Pirates and a few Good Men...laid a second whupping on ya. Google the song "Battle of New Orleans" perhaps!

Those were military victories....unlike the political victory you reference.:=

That Army on bicycles did have a few Tanks, SAM's, Mig 21's...you might recall....and the leadership of Lyndon Baines Johnson mixed in.:uhoh:

Personal note: We wuz winning when I left the second time....so don't blame me for the outcome.:p

[racedo]

They are far more sophisticated than many here are crediting them... http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/puppy_dog_eyes.gif

They get the bomb and you have to talk & concede. That is the real fear.

Ultimately its a diplomatic advantage/issue.


Pretty much as I see it as lets face it Pakistan has the bomb with Saudi cash and they a lot more unstable than Iran.

Issue the Western powers have with Iran is that it refuses to co tow to the West despite the Western powers attempt at destruction be it Iraqi invasion and previous coups.

[Lyneham Lad]

Will this lead to the final countdown... ?

http://www.kmercerphotography.co.uk/iPhone4S/Iran_3_800-2.jpg