It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Israel official: Strike on Iran possible

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 09:20 AM
link   

JERUSALEM - The deputy defense minister suggested Friday that Israel might be forced to launch a military strike against Iran's disputed nuclear program — the clearest statement yet of such a possibility from a high-ranking official


Wonder if this is true? I know I don't like it. If they do what does this mean for the United States? Would we be drawn in? Or will we stay out of it?

More to the story here.

news.yahoo.com...




posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Israel needs to be overt now to prevent Iran from thinking they're protected against a U.S. invasion because of the Democratic sweep in Congress.

Admittedly, it will be much more difficult for Bush to cavort to Iran now with political enemies in power. So, Israel just needs to keep Iran on edge since the U.S. can no longer play military ambiguity with the Persian nation.



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Well, no surprise here. I have always maintained that the Israelis are dead serious about no nukes in Iran- US backed or not. I have a hunch that with the Dems sweeping Congress, Israel may feel that US support may be less once they are in power. I wouldn't doubt that Israel is trying to send the message to Iran that no matter what happens in the US, and who is in power, it doesn't change the fact that Iran will have to contend with Israeli resolve.

As it is now, I believe Israel has put up with the threat of annihilation only because they know Iran does not have the capacity to do it completely. Iran with 5 large enough nukes could do it, and many believe that they already have the delivery mechanisms in place, at least for smaller nukes. But with the recent Syrian-Iranian defense pact, why wouldn't Iran just get them into Syria for a launch? That is particularly dangerous, because the distance could be reduced to so little, that it would allow maximum nuclear payloads, with near zero warning/reaction time.

And so one might ask well why would they be any more concerned about Iran working with Russia and the IAEA towards a peaceful nuclear energy program? Well, it appears that diplomatic pressure didn't have the desired effect on North Korea- they just tested a nuke, despite all the warnings and diplomatic efforts.

And who knows what Iran may have developed, or will develop secretly? Israel continually makes it clear that they are NOT going to find out the hard way.

So how would Israel accomplish limited strikes on Iran, with such a great distance to cover? Many swear the US would have to be involved, but I am not so convinced. I believe Israel could just barely pull it off unassisted by flying through one of several possible routes:



Consider that Israel is going to have some of the best pilots on the planet, who with the most resolute orders would even, I believe, shoot down any aircraft attempting to intercept them. They'd probably fly extremely low, avoiding radar, and refueling is a major concern. A couple of those routes could be flown without in air refuels, as fuel capacities for some of their F16's can handle the job, allbeit with minimal deviations or combat. Then there is also the possibilty of Israel attacking by submarine positioned in the Persian Gulf. A combination of both would likely be the most effective: planes hit the closest targets in northern Iran, and subs take care of everything else.

What is troublesome to me is that Iran would gladly sacrifice so many innocent lives to achieve Israel's total destruction, not to mention the damage to the environment. Depending on which way the wind happens to be blowing that day, think of all the countries that could be affected by the fallout of such an Iranian nuclear attack. Hell, their own allies Hezbollah in Lebanon could pay a deadly price, as well as Syrians, Jordanians, Saudis, and Egyptians. But hey it's all worth it, of course, because Allah is Great.


Edn

posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 11:41 AM
link   
All Israel have achieved (if they do plan to attack Iran) is give Iran a better opportunity to prepare for the attack not to mention Israel have given Iran more of a reason to dislike Israel.



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Well, no surprise here. I have always maintained that the Israelis are dead serious about no nukes in Iran- US backed or not. I have a hunch that with the Dems sweeping Congress, Israel may feel that US support may be less once they are in power. I wouldn't doubt that Israel is trying to send the message to Iran that no matter what happens in the US, and who is in power, it doesn't change the fact that Iran will have to contend with Israeli resolve.

As it is now, I believe Israel has put up with the threat of annihilation only because they know Iran does not have the capacity to do it completely. Iran with 5 large enough nukes could do it, and many believe that they already have the delivery mechanisms in place, at least for smaller nukes. But with the recent Syrian-Iranian defense pact, why wouldn't Iran just get them into Syria for a launch? That is particularly dangerous, because the distance could be reduced to so little, that it would allow maximum nuclear payloads, with near zero warning/reaction time.

And so one might ask well why would they be any more concerned about Iran working with Russia and the IAEA towards a peaceful nuclear energy program? Well, it appears that diplomatic pressure didn't have the desired effect on North Korea- they just tested a nuke, despite all the warnings and diplomatic efforts.

And who knows what Iran may have developed, or will develop secretly? Israel continually makes it clear that they are NOT going to find out the hard way.

So how would Israel accomplish limited strikes on Iran, with such a great distance to cover? Many swear the US would have to be involved, but I am not so convinced. I believe Israel could just barely pull it off unassisted by flying through one of several possible routes:



Consider that Israel is going to have some of the best pilots on the planet, who with the most resolute orders would even, I believe, shoot down any aircraft attempting to intercept them. They'd probably fly extremely low, avoiding radar, and refueling is a major concern. A couple of those routes could be flown without in air refuels, as fuel capacities for some of their F16's can handle the job, allbeit with minimal deviations or combat. Then there is also the possibilty of Israel attacking by submarine positioned in the Persian Gulf. A combination of both would likely be the most effective: planes hit the closest targets in northern Iran, and subs take care of everything else.

What is troublesome to me is that Iran would gladly sacrifice so many innocent lives to achieve Israel's total destruction, not to mention the damage to the environment. Depending on which way the wind happens to be blowing that day, think of all the countries that could be affected by the fallout of such an Iranian nuclear attack. Hell, their own allies Hezbollah in Lebanon could pay a deadly price, as well as Syrians, Jordanians, Saudis, and Egyptians. But hey it's all worth it, of course, because Allah is Great.

I'm with you %100 on that theory American. That is what I believe will happen just as you detailed it. MY way above vote to you...



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Unless I'm missing something there's no way Israel could do this without refueling. The southern route is the shortest and I'm estimating that at about 3,500mi round-trip. The F-16 ferry range is about 2,000mi. Refuel in Iraq perhaps?



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 11:59 AM
link   
TrueAmerican

you got a WATS from me.
I am from israel and you've made a good prediction. israel can not ignore iran's nuclear development process and their threats for destruction of my country.

in the near future, if no political solution will be found, an israeli strike would be inevitable.



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jtma508
Unless I'm missing something there's no way Israel could do this without refueling. The southern route is the shortest and I'm estimating that at about 3,500mi round-trip. The F-16 ferry range is about 2,000mi. Refuel in Iraq perhaps?



I think you hit the nail on the head. Even if we announce a date to pull out of Iraq, that won't be for at least 2 years; the U.S. would gladly give Israel a staging area somewhere in the remote eastern half of Iraq. Blatantly allowing Israel use of airstrips in populated areas would only incite the Shi'ia majority in Iraq against the U.S., and perhaps spark a major escalation of violence there. So the airstrips would have to be in remote areas and relatively secret.

In fact, I wouldn't be too surprised if such places are already underway...



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 12:14 PM
link   
The Democrats don't take control of the House and Senate until January, so, a U.S./Israeli strike is still possible. Not to mention the President can authorize attacks and invasions without congressional approval for 30 days.

Israel will attack Iran pre-emptively. It's just a matter of when. When it gets so serious that you're asking yourself if today is the day that your entire country is leveled and turned into a radioactive wasteland for thousands of years, then it's time to act and prevent it. Israel has every right to pre-emptively attack Iran if Iran continues to dis-obey U.N. resolutions and stand in the way of diplomatic solutions. If these nuclear plants were really for peaceful purposes, why not co-operate? It makes no sense. Iran is in this for nuclear weapons to use against Israel.

If I had power in Israel, I'd attack Iran right now..but that's just me.

[edit on 11/10/2006 by DickBinBush]



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by jtma508
Unless I'm missing something there's no way Israel could do this without refueling. The southern route is the shortest and I'm estimating that at about 3,500mi round-trip. The F-16 ferry range is about 2,000mi. Refuel in Iraq perhaps?


Well, it depends on what target we're talking about. To attack the nuclear reactor at Bushehr, for instance, I calculated the distance using Israel's southern base, Ovda near the Jordanian border, to the Iranian city of Shiraz, which is about 900 to 1000 miles, give or take a few. Note that Bushehr is closer than that, as the distance calculators I used would not pull up Bushehr directly. Gee, I wonder why.


I then compared that with the standard ranges specified for some of the Israeli fighter aircraft such as F-15's and F-16's, which range from 2,400 to 3,400 miles or so. In theory, they could reach certain targets in Iran and return without in air refueling. But beware the subs! Whatever holes are left from airstrikes, would likely be covered by submarine, but I am still unclear at what distribution of munitions between air and sub could achieve the adequate destruction of all pertinent targets to call it a successful mission. Some of the further hardened and underground targets might not be accessible by air, and yet immune to the munitions available to submarines.

Edit to add: Hey thanks guys for the votes! Just saw those.


[edit on 10-11-2006 by TrueAmerican]



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 01:52 PM
link   
I'm sure Israël won't go alone without nukes, maybe nuclear bunker buster or missiles. They can't sustain a mass second strike by Iran with his 10.000s of chemical and biological missiles again US troops in Iraq and Israël. So if Israël go, USA go. Democrats are even talking of a draft.

So here, who want to die for Israël?

[edit on 10-11-2006 by Vitchilo]



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Democrats are even talking of a draft.


Where are Democrats talking about a draft?

I think if there was a draft process supported by most democrats, especially the leaders, the Republicans would have used it against them during the election.

And if this were true, the Congress and Senate would be red once again.




posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Dems to bring draft?

Anyway, republicans want draft too... there are like democrats.




posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Israel can not fight a war with Iran. They would be hard-pressed to take out all of Iran's underground processing plants with a simple airstrike and they would be assured of retaliatory strikes. Keep in mind that for Israel to fight a full-scale war they have to shut down their entire economy because EVERYONE goes to fight. They try and avoid protracted wars at all costs that entail full-mobilization.

I may be wrong, but I doubt they will strike Iran preemptively. It is a far riskier move on their part than when they hit Iraq.

I believe the best solution to the Iran/Israel standoff would be to invite Israel to join NATO. This would create a huge dis-incentive for Iran to attack them. Of course the EU will not want to do this because then the Palestinian problem becomes their problem. But seeing as how many of the problems in the modern middle east (especially relating to Israel) stem from influential actions taken in Europe, the europeans should have some ownership over the conflict.



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Dems to bring draft?

Anyway, republicans want draft too... there are like democrats.



In the article it talks about Rangel, which if I remember correctly, he brough the issue about the draft to drum up support AGAINST the war, so he can scare the American public.

If you know anything about American politics, you will know that Democrats will NOT vote on a draft. That will destroy their chances for 2008 elections and for a long time to come.



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 11:16 PM
link   
When they struck Osirak they had to convert those jets into flying Fuel tanks, and they made it back with just enough fuel. Iran is even further and they have been preparing so they are not caught unaware like Iraq. These guys flying there will not be returning. That will be a good thing for palestinians to have a couple less pilots to worry about bombing their houses. I hope they fail in their mission to destroy another countries property and hopefully they realize they will be crossing over the borders of other sovereign nations to further break the law. This idea of "pre-emptive" strike is hogwash. Its terrorism plain and simple. To follow this country whose judgement is clouded in hatred and fear is to parallel ourselves to their way of life living under high security and the constant threat of retribution for their acts against the innocent. This is not the way.



posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
When they struck Osirak they had to convert those jets into flying Fuel tanks, and they made it back with just enough fuel.


I wouldn't mind seeing your backup for that statement. Very little is known about exactly how those attacks were pulled off, especially the ingress and egress routes. It was my understanding that those remain secret to this day.


This idea of "pre-emptive" strike is hogwash. Its terrorism plain and simple.


Normally I would totally agree. Take the case for Iraq, for instance. All the lies about real WMD's, no ties to terrorists, and etc etc etc. Bogus preemptive war, IMO. But there are times when preemption may be justified.

Tell me PieMan, if someone threatened to kill you and your entire family, not once, not twice, but multiple times- and you knew they were just waiting to get a big enough gun to do it- and you went to the authorities- and nothing they did seemed to make a difference- and you were pretty sure that once they got that gun that they would indeed kill you and your entire family- would you wait until he tried before you went and took that sucka out? When you know he hates you deeply, and desires nothing more than your total annihilation?

Because this is a very small, and almost inconsequential parity to the real problem Israel faces with Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. They are being threatened with ANNIHILATION man. What part of this do you not understand? It changes things man. It changes things from being illegal. It changes things from being unrighteous. It changes things when a country is publicly declaring that they will kill every last woman and child in your country, as soon as they have the weapons to do it.

Now whether you or I, or the rest of humanity agrees with it or not, it doesn't affect what Israel MUST do, in their position. No amount of diplomacy will work in this case. No amount of diplomacy will change the generational teaching of hatred that Iranians accrue for Israel with each baby born. At least, not within enough of a timeframe to dispel this hatred before Iran gets the bomb. There is no time for armchair warriors. No time for diplomacy. Iran gets that bomb, and they have made it very clear that they will use it on Israel, IF they don't have it already. Of course Iran could never announce that publicly, because they KNOW what would happen, and it could be that they are just waiting for the right timing.


To follow this country whose judgement is clouded in hatred and fear is to parallel ourselves to their way of life living under high security and the constant threat of retribution for their acts against the innocent. This is not the way.


Well, I'd be curious as to what YOUR way is PieMan. Oops, sorry, it appears that you are no longer there because- well, you failed to act and the other guy got the big gun he needed.
Unless Israel is willing to relocate the whole entire country, (just ain't gonna happen), this problem is not going away anytime soon. Unfortunate, but IMO, true. If there IS a better way, then someone better find it. Fast.



posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor


Where are Democrats talking about a draft?

I think if there was a draft process supported by most democrats, especially the leaders, the Republicans would have used it against them during the election.

And if this were true, the Congress and Senate would be red once again.



well if you bothere dto finish reading it....rangel re-introduced the bill saying "we may have to draft whether we like it or not"



posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
I wouldn't mind seeing your backup for that statement. Very little is known about exactly how those attacks were pulled off, especially the ingress and egress routes. It was my understanding that those remain secret to this day.


Yes they were secret but I guess they became declassified. It was on the History channel and they interviewed the pilots, the men behind the plan and they outlined how the plan worked and how they pulled it off. The pilots said it was a suicide mission and that they were prepared to die, and they probably wouldn't be coming back, there was a chance they could have ben shot down going over hostile territory and they had to fly below radar and drop the extra tanks in foreign territory at the risk of being traced back to them. It was interesting. One of the pilots was obviously an American born , american trained pilot, who spoke perfect english. The person who was one of the commanders who thought up the idea was speaking in Hebrew with subtitles and the plan had been in the making for over a year. I forgot the name of the operation they called it but this show was maybe about a year old or so.



Tell me PieMan, if someone threatened to kill you and your entire family, not once, not twice, but multiple times- and you knew they were just waiting to get a big enough gun to do it- and you went to the authorities- and nothing they did seemed to make a difference- and you were pretty sure that once they got that gun that they would indeed kill you and your entire family- would you wait until he tried before you went and took that sucka out? When you know he hates you deeply, and desires nothing more than your total annihilation?

It all depends on how you look at things. If that person was telling me for over 10 years that he thought I was sleeping with his wife and constantly making accusations towards me, telling the entire neighborhood I would sleep with their wives, he would kill me if he ever caught me with her and that they should do something about me or that he would do something himself, and finally after 10 years of this untrue and unwanted threats and malignment I tell him if you come near me you looney (insert expletive here) I will mess you up, and he runs to the cops and shouts that I threatened his life......what should I do at that point? 10 years of harrassment and accusations that weren't even true, and I am the guilty one for finally telling this ahole to stay away from me?

Think about it man....Israel has been like the nosey neighbor Mrs Kravitz from The Munsters always looking out the window, always watching what her neighbors were doing and always calling for Abner her husband to come look out the window and see what they were doing. Except this Mrs Kravitz is building up quite the arsenal herself, missile improvements, weapons purchases, improved avionics, tanks, subs, boats , and god knows what else, and when the Munsters build a long range missile for their own defense mRs, Kravitz sneaks over by their house and spies on what they are doing, then runs back to Abner and shouts "They are building Long Range Missiles!" I am sure they want to kill me!!







Because this is a very small, and almost inconsequential parity to the real problem Israel faces with Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. They are being threatened with ANNIHILATION man. What part of this do you not understand? It changes things man. It changes things from being illegal. It changes things from being unrighteous. It changes things when a country is publicly declaring that they will kill every last woman and child in your country, as soon as they have the weapons to do it.

I'd like to see positive proof of this accusation that in fact Iran has a weapon and they intend to use it on israel even though a religious Fatwa was issued by the supreme Mullah of Iran that they will not produce Nuclear weapons. (That they won't believe only because its inconvenient)




Well, I'd be curious as to what YOUR way is PieMan. Oops, sorry, it appears that you are no longer there because- well, you failed to act and the other guy got the big gun he needed.
Unless Israel is willing to relocate the whole entire country, (just ain't gonna happen), this problem is not going away anytime soon. Unfortunate, but IMO, true. If there IS a better way, then someone better find it. Fast.

So we just let Israel relocate Iran huh? Like they did to Iraq not once but twice, or like they do the palestinians or the Lebanese over the summer?

My way is to let the people who would know do their thing...not the Mossad, not some exiled dork who is dying to get back at the iranians, and not some politician thats out to appease AIPAC..let IAEA do their job and keep the inspectors there, keep the cameras going and the inspections constant.

I really hate to keep repeating this but are we to take the word of a country that knowingly and willingly committed fraud in order to gain Nuclear technology and equipment and does not submit to any treaty or inspections whatsoever, offers no inspections of her nuke sites, no nuclear disposal information and no idea as to the conditions of their plants or safety precautions. How would you like living next door to that? Chernobyl contaminated 61,780 square miles of area....how big is Israel? 8019 sq miles in area. Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria. Great neighbors those Israelis.



Disappointed that U.S. allies haven't joined the embargo against Iran, lobbyists for Israel are urging the U.S. Congress to adopt legislation that could punish foreign companies that do business with Iran. One of Israel's top strategic priorities is to prevent Tehran from getting the bomb.



Israelis See Iran as a Nuclear Menace Volume 1 Number 7 (September 1995)

Never threatening?? They have been out to chop off Iran at the ankles since 1995.



[edit on 11-11-2006 by ThePieMaN]



posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan


well if you bothere dto finish reading it....rangel re-introduced the bill saying "we may have to draft whether we like it or not"


Exactly. Because of the Republican Bush started wars. No Democrat will support a draft if they are trying to be re-elected. It is a great way to point to the Republicans as possible causes to send your children in harm's way,



new topics




 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join