Israel seeks US green light for Iran attack -- report

[edit on 26-2-2007 by grover]

Originally posted by searching_for_truth
if Israel attacks first, will that make U.S. automatically involved in the war? Or is it the other way around?

Originally posted by marg6043
The Bush administration will use the attack as an excuse to aid Israel and finish what they have started in the middle east with Afghanistan, Iraq and next Iran so far the only reason that is keeping the present administration from consolidating the region is the mess that Iraq has become and the problems now with the Democratic congress . . .

Some other subtle event, like this;
Another ATS Thread

British troops to be sent to Afghanistan

LONDON - Britain's Defense Secretary Des Browne on Monday announced the deployment of 1,400 extra troops to Afghanistan to tackle a threatened Taliban spring offensive, days after Tony Blair announced a major withdrawal from Iraq.

UK is pulling out their troops in Iraq, but then, they are sending more to Afghanistan. I don't quite see the point here. My guess (only) is that it could be a tactical move just in case U.S. or Israel invades Iran. Just my thoughts. ( I could be wrong )

because the UK has come to understand the reality behind Iraq...
and that is, there was no issue there, until the coalition arrived.

where as afghanistan, was a breeding ground for terrorists...
The london bombings came from pakistan I believe?, which borders afghanistan?

so should Afghanistan fall to the taleban, a taleban that has suffered under the US and UK troops.. they will be further wishing to attack the great infidels.

Afghan is the SMART fight, the WORTHY fight
Iraq is the stupid fight, the illegial fight.

its a shame it took the UK so long to realise this....

my nightmare scenario is that isreal attacks iran, and the US doesnt stop them. we dont aid them, but we dont do anything to prevent it. iran blames us and we have terrorist attacks anyway.

we've been seen as close allies for so long, might we not suffer guilt by association?

It is a possibility. Even in Iraq, when their embassy staff got kidnapped, they already accused US of being involved. Event like Israel attacking Iran will put the blame on U.S.

Iran as of now should also not be very comfortable being in between Afghanistan & Iraq. Both are under US ocupation.

I think that they Iran would maybe blame the US to a degree, and maybe we would see a couple of terrorist occurrences in America. But they would probably be so mad at Israel that they would concentrate on taking them down first. Israel would be the priority target for Iranian military and also terrorist resources.

If Israel attacks, the U.S. looks too punked to stop it.

If Israel attacks and Iran does nothing to retaliate, they look like the primitive barbariants who tried to play big and got put in their place for doing so. Just like 1981.

If the Iranians attack Israel via Hezbollah and Hamas, /after/ Israel has nominally given them their sovereignity, the relevant Palestinian Territories and Lebanon will become free fire zones.

Iraq has no real reason to want Iran strong while they have not so much as a rock to throw back. This is particularly so if the U.S. leaves Iraq in 2009 and thus they have no backers. Iran may want an Islamic Fundamentalist Empire that is basically Persia reborn. But I doubt if the Iraqi government is interested. Not least because they will 'win' in the current insurgency, just as soon as the gloves come off and they are free to execute wholesale slaughter of the 20% minority that are the Sunni insurgents.

Syria has no reason to want Iran to have nukes OR a defacto border with them. Because their own TBM/Chemical programs are not as advanced and they must look 50-100 years down the road to 'when we're next'.

The U.S. doesn't need to look any more whipped than we already do before the illegal Israeli influence in our government yet the majority of that influence is within Congress, not the White House. And most Congressmen would state that allowing an Israeli attack was not only provocative to Iran but /distractive/ from Iraq policy debate. Because any act by Iran would cause the U.S. presence to be retranchist intensified 'lest they attack the poor dumb Iraqis just to get at U.S.'.

The Iranian's have played bagmen to Terrorism since the 1980s. In this the Syrians have been their streetboss thugs as intermediaries. For some damn reason, we have refused to lay the blame for this (including much of Al Qaedas support) where it should lie. If Iran doesn't IMMEDIATELY hold the U.S. repsonsible for attacks on her shores by an 'ally' that could only reach their own over Iraq; they will not only be punked in the eyes of those they would lead. But they will be forced to resort to terror attacks elsewhere in the world. Which would effectively create a 'baaaaad men' policy bulwark behind which to hide any and all further actions against them (guerilla wars are never won from within the states they are fought).

Myself, the big questions are the most pragmatic ones of logistics:

1. Iran has played a dispersal game, both in the variety of refining processes (heavy water reactors, gas centrifuge etc.) they engage in and the diverse locations of their program. As such, no single strike will do more than cripple the facia of the program at ONE site.

2. As it is /unlikely/ that the UN will allow for the prosecution of a more generalist IDFAF Air War (in the same way as the 1956 battles were shut down) and to attempt such would put WAAAAY too much egg on the U.S. face. Your best bet would be to destroy the engineers where they live (if you can determine this) and decapitate the leadership where they work. With a followup threat: "There, now you have no baaaaad men to force you down this dark path, do the right thing or we will come back using 'any and all means'.

3. Obviously, philosophically, this is the equivalent of saying that Jews and Western European based cultures are superior to those of Arabs in holding the only cocked-trigger atomic response capability. Something which the Iraqis and Iranians both have perhaps alreayd proven in PGW-I and II. But which will come off as seemingly hypocritical to a world which has, heretofore been told that we respect them, as ethnic groups, religions and nations.

4. If Iran attacks as the Brits pull out, the question becomes one of how much the U.S.' own 'relocation program', into the heart of Iraqi society, will help or hurt them. I _do not_ think we have enough PAC-3 to cover all bases, literally. But an enhanced guerilla action may well be something that Iraqis, unprepared for the shock of 'them or U.S.' decision on who owns their security, will fall back on their stupid, ingrained, introverted, notions of 'Islamic Unity'.


CONCLUSION:
No matter what happens, we cannot afford to continually pump up the jam on propoganda wars. Or our own helplessness to do more will become apparent even as our deliberate exacerbation of a bad situation /without/ Iranian direct action will seem all the more un-healthy for the region.

Given they have the reach to launch from the gates of Hormuz or even just outside it, I put some faith in whatever cruise system the Israelis have developed for their Type 212s but at the same time I fully suspect that the key to their effective use MUST BE inherent to an unstable government which can be slapped around and humiliated to the point of internal replacement of key personalities and power blocks (the Kruschyev scenario).

I just don't think the logistics or targeting are in place to handle a more complete annihilation of the Iranian nuclear weaponization process. And so long as they are backs-to-wall they will have the majority of their people's stubborn intransigence in not /wanting/ a change. So much as a chance to humiliate the U.S.

This will not end well.


KPl.

Originally posted by ch1466
This will not end well.
KPl.

It's a Vicious Circle.