Posted on 12/05/2011 10:31:36 AM PST by indpndtguy
The United States has pointedly ramped up its public warnings over the last few weeks about the risks of military action against Iran, accompanied by private words of caution to Israel, which sees Tehran’s nuclear push as a direct threat.
But so far, at least, comments by U.S. and Israeli officials suggest that Washington's private lobbying has yet to convince Israeli hard-liners and even some moderates that alternatives, like sanctions and diplomatic pressure, will ultimately succeed in curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
It is unclear whether the differing views are any indication about whether Israel might be moving closer to a go-it-alone military strike, an option Tel Aviv has ruled out for the moment. Indeed, that may ultimately not be the case.
Rhetoric has periodically escalated over the years, often bolstering pushes - like the present one - for tougher sanctions against Iran. Making the right decision
But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in a speech on Sunday widely seen within Israel as hinting about policy on Iran, spoke about making “the right decision at the right moment,” even when allies object.
A nuclear-armed Iran, Netanyahu has said, is an existential threat to Israel.
Netanyahu’s comments came on the heels of U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s strongest comments yet explaining America’s concerns about a military strike on Iran.
Panetta said it risked “an escalation” that could “consume the Middle East in confrontation and conflict that we would regret.” It could also hobble the fragile U.S. and European economies and might do little to actually stop Iran from getting an atomic weapon - a goal Tehran denies having.
Iran says its uranium enrichment is for peaceful purposes.
Panetta, citing conversations with his “Israeli friends,” said an attack would only set back Iran’s nuclear program by one to two years at best. He also warned about blowback to U.S. forces in the region.
“The United States would obviously be blamed and we could possibly be the target of retaliation from Iran, striking our ships, striking our military bases,” Panetta told a forum in Washington on Friday.
Panetta privately outlined U.S. concerns in talks with Israel's Defense Minister Ehud Barak in Canada last month, including the impact a strike would have on the world economy.
Analysts say Tehran could retaliate by closing the Strait of Hormuz, the waterway where about 40 percent of all traded oil passes. Global meltdown
President Barack Obama, who is gearing up for a re-election battle next year, has had more trouble than his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, in winning Israeli trust.
Bruce Riedel, a former adviser to the Obama administration and former senior CIA expert on the Middle East, said Washington was deeply wary of being dragged into a conflict that, from its perspective, might be unnecessary.
“Obama knows a strike on Iran by Israel will create a regional war and a global economic meltdown that America will have to clean up,” Riedel said.
“And he knows Israel - with its own considerable nuclear arsenal - does not face an existential threat from a nuclear Iran.”
But, even considering likely retaliation on U.S. forces, the top U.S. military officer told Reuters in an interview this week he did not know whether the Jewish state would even give the United States notice ahead of time if it decided to act.
General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also suggested there was a gap in perspective between Israel and the United States, which sees sanctions and diplomatic pressure as the right path to take on Iran.
“I’m not sure the Israelis share our assessment of that. And because they don’t and because to them this is an existential threat, I think probably that it’s fair to say that our expectations are different right now,” Dempsey said..
Iran is facing another wave of sanctions following a report last month by the U.N. nuclear watchdog which said Tehran appeared to have worked on designing an atom bomb and may still be pursuing secret research to that end.
Barak said on Thursday an Israeli attack on Iran was not imminent. But, asked about Dempsey’s comments to Reuters, Barak said Israel “greatly respects” the United States.
“But one must remember that ultimately, Israel is a sovereign nation and the Israeli government, defense forces and security services - not others - are responsible for Israel's security, future and existence,” Barak said.
Barak, in a radio interview, said Israel would be very glad if sanctions and diplomacy brought the Iranian leadership to a clear decision to abandon its nuclear military program.
But, “unfortunately, I think that is not going to happen,” he said.
Salt’s no problem for us, but it’s getting harder and harder to find peanut oil at a decent price. We buy jugs of it whenever we find it on sale.
Thanks for the tip on the rice! We’ll look for it on our next foray into the wilds of Spokane.
Thanks for that recipe. I’ll give it a try and see if I can dig up some of that rice!
I realized that lard is shelf storable at room temperature and lasts quite a long while. It gives home made bread that "grandma made it" flavor that nothing else quite comes close to. And it's cheap....LOL.
EVERY year is supposedly the year that FSU mounts the mighty comeback. I’m alum, and I’ve been disappointed since I graduated in ‘02.
This was the first year since 1982 that all 3 major Florida colleges weren’t ranked in the top 20. Shitty all around.
I was just bustin’ yer chops.
There’s a lot that we don’t know as to what is going on in various places, official and non-official but the one thing I DO know is that high level communications between friendly governments on grave matters of state do NOT occur in the press. All these articles about the US telling Israel this and Israel responding with that - that’s just not how governments do business on matter such as these. All of that has got to be for someone’s consumption but they’re not the real deal.
Between adversaries - conceivably - do this and that before such and such a time. Between allies - not likely.
bump
We always tried to transit through there as fast as we could...Not too big a deal...
The civilians ships never had the capability to sense the targeting radars/emmissions on them from the “silkworm” sites...But we did...If they knew, that alone would have been enough to choke up those narrows...Would not even have had to deploy any mines at all...
As much as some may believe you could lock that door, I think we and a few allies could keep it open by turning a few places into smoking holes...(i.e.: Bandar Abbas, and few of their islands and rigs near Abu Dhabi, etc etc etc...)
Call me the eternal optamist...I still have a lot of faith in the fleet getting it done...
Maybe, maybe not, but it would be a huge gamble by all participants to try to test the theory either way.
We, or Iran, might not like the results. Or we may both live to regret the miscalculations.
Our Navy and bases can take pretty good care of themselves. Barring an especially stupid replay of MacArthur's failure to disburse aircraft in the Phillipines on 12/8/41 (well after he knew about Pearl Harbor), I'd say that damage will be relatively light. Personally, I'd be more concerned about the Iranians putting a few nuke-armed Scuds on barges off of our coasts and either nuking cities or setting off multiple EMPs that would kill 300 million people in the following year as our civilization collapsed.
Analysts say Tehran could retaliate by closing the Strait of Hormuz, the waterway where about 40 percent of all traded oil passes. Global meltdown
If the Navy and Air Force are left to do what they do best, such a closure would be removed within a week or two at the most, and Iran would cease to have any navy or air force of its own; nor would they have any missile production capacity to speak of...all without any boots on the ground (or possibly with a few hundred special forces on a very temporary basis).
President Barack Obama, who is gearing up for a re-election battle next year, has had more trouble than his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, in winning Israeli trust.
Gee, ya think? Maybe having Bibi come in the back entrance and making him cool his heels for 45 minutes had a bit to do with that. Or possibly making his first foreign trip to Egypt to tell the Arabs what a bunch of great people they were. Or possibly telling Israel in public that it needed to go back to the Auschwitz borders while its PM was in the air on the way to visit you. Or overthrowing a stabilizing force in the Mideast (Mubarak) and paving the way for Teheran on the Nile. Or perhaps sitting around with your thumb up your ass while the mad mullahs develop nukes and arm Hezbollah with 40,000 rockets to launch at Israel. Maybe it was sitting in Pastor Wrong's "church" for 20 years listening to constant anti-Israel and anti-Jewish tirades. Nah, couldn't be any of those. Oh, yeah, now I know - it was Bush telling the world that Israel was our closest ally in the Mideast. I forgot the key rule of life under pResident Odumbo - BUSH'S FAULT!
“And he knows Israel - with its own considerable nuclear arsenal - does not face an existential threat from a nuclear Iran.”
Was this guy Reidel born a drooling, moronic jackass, or did he have to work at it? Listen, dumbass, Israel would be crippled with one bomb over Tel Aviv. While it could wreak enormous destruction in revenge upon both Iran and the rest of the Arab world, it would essentially cease to be a viable nation, with its population being wiped out or driven away within weeks. 3-5 bombs would accelerate the process. I would call that an "existential threat."
Well put.
There will have to be a preemptive strike against Iran; the US doesn’t want Israel doing it (more accurately, Zero doesn’t want Israel showing him up, in the process undermining his pro-jihadist street cred). I doubt that the Saudis care who does it, as long as it gets done.
Even the Kenyan doesn’t want the oil supply cut off, mainly because the disruption to the Chinese supply would bring about a collapse of the current economic house of cards — the Iranians know this — and possibly trigger a war, or a mere military confrontation between the US and China.
he knows Israel - with its own considerable nuclear arsenal - does not face an existential threat from a nuclear Iran.”
Oh really? the hubris of this administration is
beyond belief.
Also no one seems to ask the question, if Iran strikes
first, will there not be an even worse escalation?
Fools, if we survive this bumbling communist idiot
it will be a miracle.
All depends on what "existential" is. I've read that even with a delivery system, Iran won't have the capability to inflict more that a few hundred thousand casualties. Is that existential in the meaning of destroying Israel, no, not by itself. A nuclear response against Iran would be a given. Israel's conventional capability would be crippled by the demands of civilian casualities, and the inability to effectively mobilize, so a strike against Syria, Lebanon, Gaza are a given, and possibly Egypt and the Saudis. At a minimun. Nuclear too, could be, depends on the degradation of Israel's defensive capabilities. I left out Jordan, Iran will probably drop something short on them, the West Bank too. I remember during the first gulf war when Israel issued civilians gas masks the palestinians went nuts because they didn't get any. If I were them, I wouldn't count on the Iranians hitting what they aim at, or Israel being able to take down an incoming missle. I'm sure Leon Panetta has thought about all this.
I agree...I’m not saying we won’t get our noses bloodied...
I just have a concern that after the initial salvos are fired, I do not have a lot of confidence in our politicos having the courage to follow-thru to sink this military “chip-shot”...
Thats the “miscalculation” that I would agree with you about...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.