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.

 

Attack on Iran Unlikely This Year

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   
WAR HAS BEEN AVERTED!! Everyone can calm down now!



Head of London-based Institute for Strategic Studies says only US capable of serious campaign against nuclear facilities; pre-emptive Israeli strike could backfire, he claims.


They make a good case, basically claiming that Israel is only capable of limited strikes that would merely be a setback for Iran. They believe it would take US involvement to conduct an all-out campaign sufficient for removal of Iran’s nuclear program.



“My judgment is that an Israeli attack on Iran of an overt kind is unlikely this year,” Chipman told a news conference on the annual assessment of the global military power balance.

Chipman said that in talks this week in Washington, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu received an assurance from US President Barack Obama.

The promise was “in effect, that if Israel took US advice and did not attack prematurely, that when the threat matured, the United States would, if all other options failed, use the military option.”

“So my judgment is that it is unlikely that there would be an attack this year.”
link

But just this past Tuesday, ranking senator Carl Levin speculated after a conversation with BiBi that Israel would strike Iran.


WASHINGTON — Senior Democratic Sen. Carl Levin says he thinks an Israeli attack on Iran is likely if Tehran doesn’t follow international demands to stop uranium enrichment and allow inspections of its nuclear program.
Levin, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, made his remarks to reporters Tuesday after meeting privately with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
link


Based on Obama’s statements this week about letting the sanctions take hold, I think the analysis by the Institute for Strategic Studies may be credible.

What say you? Is this a reasonable assessment or just a ploy to get Iran’s defenses down?

edit on 8-3-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   
I think, I don't want war. I wonder how the U.S.S. Enterprise will be decommissioned though.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 




What say you? Is this a reasonable assessment or just a ploy to get Iran’s defenses down?


I highly doubt Iran will be dropping it's defenses anytime soon, and honestly can't blame them. I have to agree, while Israel is well equipped and trained, they aren't about to drop any nukes on Iran, precision tactical strikes against nuclear sites is what would be on the table.

Israel can handle that just fine... The blow back, on the other hand, and the possibility of other arab nations or Russia / China getting involved, is something Israel can not handle on it's own, and would require US help on those fronts.

The real question is, since Israel knows the US will come to their aid regardless of who hits first, is Israel feeling threatened enough to force their hand and attack unilaterally, forcing the US to come to their aid?

The window for an attack is closing, once the summer heats up it's not likely.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


No, their won't be an attack, at least by the US. It's an election year and that would make obama look bad. Will he attack after the elections? I doubt it, he has no love for Israel.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Actually I believe Israel does have sufficient weaponry and armaments to pretty much 'accomplish the task at hand', if you will. What they lack, or are short on, is the means to 'return to base' afterwards.

They were given/sold 55 bunker busters back in '09, as well as having a variety of other type heavy ordinances, both their own and those stockpiled there by the US.

They do have their own U.S. provided fleet of in-air refueling tankers [approx. 5], but would still need additional support from third-party refueling assets to fully accomplish such a 'mission'.

If they WERE to 'go it alone', so to speak, I think the likely scenario would be a bunch of midair distress calls to 'conveniently placed and already waiting US KC-135s ...

**SOS - IDF aircraft/pilot in need of emergency refueling in the vicinity of Iranian border**

but, then again, perhaps not ... if cooler heads and diplomacy reign supreme. that, however, requires all sides to be on the page and of similar intention slash mindset.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
An attack could begin at any time i think. One morning you will turn on the news and be greeted by this charming ticker scrolling across the screen..

ISRAELI AIRFORCE HAVE BEGUN BOMBING IRANIAN NUCLEAR SITES..

How long it takes for us all to get dragged into the ensuing mess is anyones guess.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Ben81
 


There are a lot of conflicting stories. I just read that US offered Israel new advanced arms to delay Iran attack.


The United States offered Israel advanced weaponry in return for it committing not to attack Iran's nuclear facilities this year, Israeli daily Maariv reported on Thursday.

Citing unnamed Western diplomats and intelligence sources, the report said that during Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to Washington this week, the US administration offered to supply Israel with advanced bunker-busting bombs and long-range refuelling planes.

In return, Israel would agree to put off a possible attack on Iran till 2013, after the US elections in November.

Yahoo


edit on 8-3-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by Ben81
 



The United States offered Israel advanced weaponry in return for it committing not to attack Iran's nuclear facilities this year, Israeli daily Maariv reported on Thursday.



This is one big contradictorial quote that doesnt even make sens
they will give big weapons to Israel so they dont attack .. just wtf is that argument

with my above post
the 2 netanyahu statements were really firm about his intentions

Sorry but i dont believe in your thread
i have made a lot of thoughs on Israel vs Iran
they really want to bomb the crap out of Ahmadinejad
Israel has been pushing and threatening Obama in secrets
Obama have a lot of pression in his back by many in his cabinet

In my opinion we have 99% chance of Israel attacking Iran with US help
1% chance of a miracle

OR
Russia and China decide to send their troops in Iran has peacekeepers
US will never dare to attack the chinese and russian soldiers
edit on 3/8/2012 by Ben81 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Atzil321
 

Hope it starts tomorrow as I am quite bored by all these talk and no action. The Iranians should all go to the streets with banners shouting " Bring it on" and televised worldwide. That should start the whole thing and thousands of ordinary people in Iran and Israel like you and me will have their lives cut short just so they could punish Iran for helping Hezbullah a few years back. Very vengeful I must add. Any excuse just to start a war.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Ben81
 

Russia and China will not be drawn into the conflict but will probably supply armaments and experts to gauge their equipment against the US and Israeli weapons. New radar/satellite combination that could pick up stealth technology and all that. You don't get to do this very often cos the price to pay is very high so they would not miss the chance. Direct involvement - no way.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by 12m8keall2c
 


I’m trying to understand the logic behind this chatter. Today you’ve got Panetta out saying the US is planning for an attack on Iran.


Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said in an interview Thursday that the Pentagon "absolutely" is preparing possible military options for a strike on Iran, in a rare public acknowledgment shortly after President Obama met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
fox


But 2 days ago Obama was talking Israel down proclaiming it was too early for a strike and we needed time for sanctions.

If the US IS NOT going to attack Iran, why would Panetta be out talking about it? I don’t see the logic behind the conflicting stories coming from this administration. Why are they playing both sides?? Who does this benefit?



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   
I do not want war..

No one in the right mind
wants war with Iran..

I think the point being is,
it is inevitable. It is going
to happen, and instead
of letting Iran beef up
even bigger, get it taken
care of now..

Like when you ignore a problem
and it only gets bigger.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   
1 year delay isnt very reassuring,

when we look at the past 11 years of USA massacres upon the mideast countries one after another!




posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Obama is covering his political can on GOP SuperTusday week,
watch this

A great deal of Obama atta-boy propaganda in that little clip

edit on 8-3-2012 by rebellender because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by rebellender
 


So you think the reason for Obama backing off is politically motivated? I know it’s a STUPID question because everything he does is politically motivated!
But there is also the idea of “wag the dog” and starting a conflict to get re-elected. After all, war time presidents typically win re-election.

Did you notice in the video, when Obama was asked about gas prices, he said “Do you think the president of the United States GOING INTO RE-ELECTION wants gas prices higher?”

The president of the United States should NEVER want gas prices higher!

I still don’t get why there are conflicting positions; planning for war yet not going to war. Bush’s position was always unambiguous.

edit on 8-3-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by rebellender
 


So you think the reason for Obama backing off is politically motivated? I know it’s a STUPID question because everything he does is politically motivated!
But there is also the idea of “wag the dog” and starting a conflict to get re-elected. After all, war time presidents typically win re-election.

Did you notice in the video, when Obama was asked about gas prices, he said “Do you think the president of the United States GOING INTO RE-ELECTION wants gas prices higher?”

The president of the United States should NEVER want gas prices higher!

I still don’t get why there are conflicting positions; planning for war yet not going to war. Bush’s position was always unambiguous.

edit on 8-3-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)

Something changed with this week it will come out as it always does. This was a dog and pony show though, no doubt about it.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   
I have never subscribed to the idea that Iran faces imminent attack.

There is a rather conspicuous ongoing effort to reduce tensions in order to facilitate a negotiated settlement. I see this outcome as being far more likely than war.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
WAR HAS BEEN AVERTED!! Everyone can calm down now!



Head of London-based Institute for Strategic Studies says only US capable of serious campaign against nuclear facilities; pre-emptive Israeli strike could backfire, he claims.




Just one question :

Who averte the WAR ?

Uncle sam ?

Or Zionists funder of military complex ?

But about "everyone". I think you mean the sheep who follow you or other war-mongers.
edit on 9/3/12 by hmdphantom because: whats wrong with ATS?



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by hmdphantom
 



Just one question :

Who averte the WAR ?

Uncle sam ?

Or Zionists funder of military complex ?

But about "everyone". I think you mean the sheep who follow you or other war-mongers.


You are the one throwing around pejoratives, not me! Even in a thread where there is no warmongering you had to throw in some name calling, didn’t you, hmdphantom??

I think Iran’s recent concession, inviting inspectors back (even though they are attempting a big cleanup effort right now), was a positive step in averting war.

I think the effort of Obama to talk BiBi off the ledge was a positive step in averting war.

I think experts coming forward and giving indication that Israel can’t do it alone is a positive step in averting war.

And frankly, I think crushing sanctions are having an effect on Iran’s desire to move forward on its path to certain destruction.

Maybe all of these things (coupled with more crippling sanctions) will break the back of the Iranian leaders and diffuse this situation.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join