U.S. planning for Israeli strike at Iran

The Washington Times ^ | May. 7

[F14 Pilot]

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

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

[Rebelbase]

"Hopefully the Israeli air force has a secret program of mid-air refueling and a huge fleet of mid-air refueling tankers. "

Israel proved at Entebbe it can go the distance.

[nuconvert]

Good thought.
Certainly a possibility.

[nuconvert]

LOL!

[Rebelbase]

Two questions:

Are the Dolphin Subs that Israel purchased from Germany last year cruise missle capable?
And, are the nuclear facilities within range of a cruise missle fired from the Persian Gulf?

[yonif]

I don't think Syria will attack Israel if Israel were to bomb Iran, due to the proximity of US forces. And with regards to Iran, Israel will either sabotage its missiles that could be launched afterwards, or something. Israel will take into account all these things if it strikes.

[Eala]

but I've been suspicious of something going on ever since there were so many reports of "UFO's" being cited over Iran in an alarming rate.

I've been kind of wondering about that too...

[Scott from the Left Coast]

Besides, then the US will still get the blame for allowing overflight rights through Iraq

Even if Israel had the capability to reach Iran, they could only do so with U.S. acquiescence. We control the skies between Israel and Iran. This fact will not be lost on the Islamic world. This would probably cause the general war U.S./allies/Israel vs. Islam that Bush seems to be bending backward, forward, and into positions that even the Kamasutra hasn't discovered, in order to avoid. Shoot, Bush even puts his own Presidency in jeapordy to avoid a general, uncontrolled, war -- so why would he acquiesce to this?

Either really big trouble is brewing or the Wash. Times is smoking something. I'm afraid that I think the Times found a good crop somewhere.

[Polybius]

Hopefully the Israeli air force has a secret program of mid-air refueling and a huge fleet of mid-air refueling tankers. Or a secret bomber program.

No.

They just have several pilots, a can of white paint and a can of blue paint at a U.S. air base somewhere in Iraq. ;-)

[SandRat]

U.S. planning for Israeli strike at Iran

The title reads like we're doing the planning for them not that we're analyzing signals that indicate that Israel is doing war what if planning for it in the event it's necessary.

Who the hell is leaking such sensitive information?

I agree with you. Who is leaking and when will the leak get plugged?

[John Lenin]

I don't think Syria will attack Israel if Israel were to bomb Iran, due to the proximity of US forces

If the war in Iraq gets any bigger where do we get more troops from ? Still think it's best if the US takes out the reactor. Assad already knows his days are numbered, never trust a desperate man.

[Salem]

(Pssssst! Hey, Iran! Spend your time and money developing another kind of "energy source." No, really. You're annoying the wrong people.)







If you'd like to be on or off this
Christian Supporters of Israel ping list,
please FR mail me. ~
    
There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had
spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass. (Joshua 21:45)
Letter To The President In Support Of Israel ~
'Final Solution,' Phase 2 ~
Warnings ~

[Allegra]

Not me. I'd be nervous if this prospect was NOT being considered. A nuclear-armed Iran is not an option. It cannot be allowed to get a nuke. Just think about it:

Whoa! I know the implications. I was just expressing a feeling that swept over me as I read that.

I'm working in Iraq. I have a slightly different perspective on things sometimes. I'm no lily-livered hand-wringer. I just happened ot have a reaction when I initially read that.

I'm human.

[yonif]

I guess so, but let me promise you this: The probability there will be war with Israel once Iran gets the nuke or if Israel strikes at it is the same. It is therefore that Israel should do the latter.

[jpl]

Stupid move. All hell will break loose. Even Israel can't be that stupid or can they? If so, Armageddon here we come.

Bulls**t.

[yonif]

Where were the Arab nations when the Iraqi reactor was striked in 1981?

[F14 Pilot]

Our 'Mr.Mojo' friend forgot that US couldn't stand back in 1973 war when Soviets were resupplying the Arabs.

Ah, Late Shah of Iran sent OIL to Israel as well. At least there were ally at that time.

[SusanTK]

My husband was born in Iran, he has family that still lives there and we've visited Iran two years ago. He prays that either the U.S. or Israel take out the nuclear facilities in Iran before they get the bomb. The mullahs are so insane and paranoid that it would be a disaster if they had a bomb. Rafsanjani(the real power in Iran today) said recently that a Muslim bomb could completely destroy Israel, but the Muslim world was so large and populous that the Israeli response would only have a limited effect. That's some serious insanity for you.

My father-in-law was just here in the U.S. recently for a short visit and every time President Bush was on T.V. he would get up and kiss the screen. Most Iranians love Bush because the mullahs fear him. Iran must be dealt with and the War on Terror must ultimately include taking down this despotic and despised regime. I know people think that the Persians should do the fighting, but they have no guns. The mullahs seized them all- my father-in-law's house was searched and they found an antique gun so the hauled him off to jail(until they could bribe someone to let him go). We don't need boots on the ground- just bomb their nuke facilities and foment the rebels. Who knows -that professor that the mullahs have condemned to death could be the Persian Nathan Hale- "give me liberty or give me death" (or was it someone else who said that?). Anyway, thanks for the pings.

[F14 Pilot]

It was Patrick Henry who said that in May , 9th 1775. A day like today!

[macrahanish #1]

Doesn't the Koran say something about the rock being invincible?

[A. Pole]

Most Iranians love Bush because the mullahs fear him. Iran must be dealt with and the War on Terror must ultimately include taking down this despotic and despised regime.

Iraqi exiles were saying this about their countrymen before the invasion. Iran is 3 times larger, mountainous with a regime which has more social base that Saddam Hussein had. Assuming that the victory would be as easy as in Iraq, American army would have to be at least three times larger. Expenses and political cost will be also larger. American resources are not unlimited.

Iran was once ruled by a government imposed by USA (shah) and it ended in a popular uprising and reign of mullahs.

I will quote Macchiavelli - no offence meant:

(Discourses Upon The First Ten Books of Titus Livy, book two, chapter XXXI)

HOW DANGEROUS IT IS TO BELIEVE EXILES

And it does not appear to me to be foreign to this subject to discuss among other matters how dangerous a thing it is to believe those who have been driven out of their country, these being matters that are acted upon each day by those who govern States; and I am especially able to demonstrate this by a memorable example given by T. Livius in his history, even though it may be outside his subject.

When Alexander the Great crossed with his army into Asia, Alexander of Epirus, his brother-in-law and uncle, came with his forces into Italy, having been called there by the exiled Lucanians, who had given him the hope that he could through their means occupy all that province. Whence he, upon their faith and hope, having come into Italy, was killed by them, because they had been promised a return to their Country by the Citizens if they would kill him. It ought to be considered, therefore, how vain are the faith and promises of those who find themselves deprived of their country. For, as to their faith, it has to be borne in mind that anytime they can return to their country by other means than yours, they will leave you and look to the other, notwithstanding whatever promises they had made you. As to their vain hopes and promises, such is the extreme desire in them to return home, that they naturally believe many things that are false and add many others by art, so that between those they believe and those they say they believe, they fill you with hope, so that relying on them you will incur expenses in vain, or you undertake an enterprise in which you ruin yourself.

The previously mentioned example of Alexander is enough for me, but in addition, that of Themistocles, the Athenian, who, having been declared a rebel, fled to Darius in Asia, where he promised him so much if he should want to assault Greece, that Darius turned to that enterprise. Themistocles, not being able to observe these promises, he poisoned himself, either from shame or from fear of punishment. And if this error was made by Themistocles, a most excellent man, it ought to be considered how much more those men err who, because of less virtu, allow themselves to be drawn by their desires and passions. A Prince, therefore, ought to go slowly in undertaking an enterprise upon the representations of an exile, for most of the times he will be left either with shame or very grave injury. And as the taking of towns rarely succeeds by deceit or by intelligence others within may have, it does not appear outside the subject to discuss it in the following chapter, adding some account of how many ways the Romans acquired them.