Cheney voices concern that Israel may attack Iran

The Jerusalem Post ^ | 20 January 2005 | JPOST.COM STAFF

[anotherview]

Jan. 20, 2005 22:25
Cheney voices concern that Israel may attack Iran
By JPOST.COM STAFF

Vice President Dick Cheney voiced concern Thursday that Israel may decide to act first against Iran to eliminate the possibility of a nuclear threat.

"If, in fact, the Israelis became convinced the Iranians had significant nuclear capability, given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards," Cheney said in an interview aired on MSNBC on the day that George W. Bush was sworn into office for his second term as president.

"You look around the world at potential trouble spots, Iran is right at the top of the list," Cheney said

[patriot_wes]

"If, in fact, the Israelis became convinced the Iranians had significant nuclear capability, given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first"

Well DUH!

[Kornev]

"What is the "Samson Option"?"

It means if the Jews/Israel go, the arab/islamic world goes with it.

[Ancesthntr]

If it's not Iraq, it'll have to be Saudi Arabia or Turkey. I bet they'll pick Door #1. ;>)

Going by way of Turkey would extend the round-trip range too far, and would also expose the attack force to Iranian radars (and, therefore, planes and AA missiles) for a far longer time period. Nix that idea.

Going by way of Saudi Arabia ain't happening, either, mainly because the Saudis have too many radars, several AWACs and way too many fighters for Israel to do it that way. Of course, if they did go through SA on both legs, they could say thanks to the Saudis for their airspace by dropping a few pigs on Mecca on the way home. :>)

I'll take Door #1, Monty, if Israel does it alone.

[iconoclast]

Why doesn't he just tell Sharon to cool it?

Or is the tail wagging the dog?

[Ancesthntr]

I do not think they have developed bunker busters yet .

They didn't have to...we sold them a couple thousand a few months ago.

The sites in Iran are scattered and would have to be hit at the same time. Refueling the F16s could also be an issue.

Both issues go away when we look the other way.

[Marano NYC]

I hope you are right on both accounts. I will search the net and try to locate the sale of those bombs .

[Ancesthntr]

http://www.ccmep.org/2004_articles/palestine/092104_israel_to_buy_500_bunkerbuster.htm

[Marano NYC]

There was a story posted in September. The sale could have taken place. Munitions sales tend to be low key

[Southack]

"I agree..except look for the feint..With attention focused on Iran..we can take out Syria quickly, then encourage and aid the Iranian dissidents to toss out the mullahs.."

This is no feint.

If we want to roll over Syria, Assad can do nothing to stop us. We could roll an expedionary armored column around the Middle-East if we so desired, though we'd have to come back to various places that we had left...to re-administer justice at later times.

Lebanon is a more likely target, of course, and needs no such "feint" towards Iran, either. If we want to smash Hezbollah and Syrian forces in Lebanon, then they *will* be smashed, no "feinting" required.

No, VP Cheney's statement is a direct shot at Iran. This is clear language that everyone can understand; an important consideration when you are going to give the Iranians at least one more chance to peacefully do the right thing.

Right now, today, is the right time. Notice that *both* President Bush as well as VP Cheney have made strong statements that apply to Iran today.

Thus, Iran now faces the choice of either backing off of their al-qaeda/AIF support and ending their nuclear weapons program, or else feeling the combined wrath of the U.S. and Israel.

[rang1995]

israel has 150 nukes according to CIA and 2-3 subs with 2nd strike capabilities,it would be terrible for a nuke over tel aviv,and I don't want it-- but it would mean the end of Arabs in the mid east

[Eric in the Ozarks]

There's no mistaking similar remarks from the president and the vice president on this score. Iran wants its nuclear weaponry to be taken seriously and it is. I will be very surprised if the mullahs aren't next on the list, ours or Israel's. They're asking for it.

[Dog]

Don't forget the Seymour Hersh article.....there was a message in there.

[AnAmericanMother]

:-) LOL!

My dog just picked up her head. Reckon she heard something?

[recalcitrant]

roflmao.

very nice.

[recalcitrant]

how long does it take to repaint a fighter bomber?
or borrow one that we have been loaning them, for 'refit and training purposes'?

less than a day you say?
or perhaps they already got 'em ready to roll?

[dervish]

To me this means an Israeli attack is imminent. I see this as a PR move by the US to distance themselves from the inevitable, and probably true, accusation of complicity.

[Robe]

What is the "Samson Option"?"

It means if the Jews/Israel go, the arab/islamic world goes with it.

---

I always thought that it meant that they would use nukes on their own territory if they were being over run

But I also agree with you observations

[dervish]

yeah I agree. This is really the green light.

[Prophet in the wilderness]

I think, that is what the US and Israel was waiting for, to wait until AFTER the election, and Inauguration to work on doing anything about IRAN.
The UN is busy now with the relief efforts in the Tsunami hit areas, and now, the US can focus on IRAN now.