Brzezinski: US Should Shoot Down Israeli Bombers Targeting Iran's Nuclear Facilities

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by AWPrime

From my second link:

That's stretching the definition quite a bit. A bit too far IMHO.

Originally Posted by AWPrime

Got anything more?

I'm not a military law expert, so I really can't elaborate more except to say that it's obviously not treason.

Has anyone in the US ever been charged with treason for refusing an order?

[AWPrime]

Originally Posted by WildCat

That's stretching the definition quite a bit. A bit too far IMHO.

Don't you think that they are playing both teams?

Quote:

I'm not a military law expert, so I really can't elaborate more except to say that it's obviously not treason.

Has anyone in the US ever been charged with treason for refusing an order?

We will just have to wait for one. So far as I can tell 'insubordination' has a wide range of punishments depending on the circumstances, ranging from dishonorable discharge, years of incarceration, to capital punishment.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

A stupid question based on a false premise.



How many F-22s are deployed to the middle east, atm?

How many will be deployed by the time Israel launches its raid?

There are fighters in the air 24/7 now over here as well as hosts of other anti aircraft countermeasures.

Not that the scenario would happen but hypothetically they would be met in the air immediately and destroyed

[LONGTABBER PE]

Originally Posted by AWPrime

Don't you think that they are playing both teams?


We will just have to wait for one. So far as I can tell 'insubordination' has a wide range of punishments depending on the circumstances, ranging from dishonorable discharge, years of incarceration, to capital punishment.

In this absurd scenario - one has to accept it could even happen in the first place ( thats asking a lot) but lets assume it did for discussion purposes.

The first question is "Is it a legitimate and LAWFUL order to begin with?"

In the proposed scenario ( as silly as it is to order the destruction of an allied countries planes on an official mission when mutual interests are at stake)- the order to engage would be a lawful ( if not questionable one) order and obeyed as such.

There are many levels of determining the validity of such a questionable order.

It has to come down the chain to the individual commanders on the ground.

If it made it to the line people- it would have been authenticated many times.

[FireGarden]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Now explain to me again how Iran shoul be considered a neutral 3rd party when Iranian weapons are being used to killl Israeli citizens even though they have a Hezbollah or Hamas flag on them?

When did I say Iran was a neutral third party?

Quote:

China is not about to become a nuclear wasteland over the price of oil.

You think it's willing to have its economy put under huge pressure for the sake of letting the Americans do whatever they want? I doubt it. Wars have been started for less. And China would retaliate to a nuclear strike with a nuclear strike. America is not about to become a nuclear wasteland for a war it didn't choose to start.

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

Israel has the means to set back the Iranian nuclear program by years, perhaps decades. They'll take what they can get.

Doubtful they would set it back by a day. If Iran has a secret nuclear weapons programme, then no-one knows where it is. Which kind of makes it difficult to bomb. If they did know where it is, then it kind of poses the question why that location hasn't been searched.

Plus there's the old Russian joke: Of course Iran stopped its nuclear weapons programme in 2003... They'd finished it.

Quote:

You mean they might give more money to Hamas and Hezbollah?

No. I mean they's bomb US forces in the Gulf. And choke off oil supply routes.

Quote:

But suddenly now regime change becomes the only option?

For those who want to bomb Iran and aren't under the impression that the Iranians will just sit there and take it. Especially under their current political circumstances. They're probably praying for an outside enemy right now.

Quote:

Israel wouldn't be forcing America into anything.

Yes, it would be. Otherwise why is America reluctant to bomb Iran? Bush would have done it if he shared your assessment of the Iranian response. He didn't. He chose to avoid all out war.

Quote:

Iran is already at war with Israel and the USA and even then, it's still Irans choice how they respond to an attack. And it should be Iran that is held responsible. Not Israel for acting in self defense.

LOL.
If Iran responds to being bombed it's Iran's fault for starting a war? Never heard anything funnier. We're so lucky that Bush was smarter than you. Because China sure as hell isn't going to blame Iran under those circumstances. I don't expect Russia will either. Though Russia will probably love the higher fuel prices.

[Sporanox]

Quote:

You think it's willing to have its economy put under huge pressure for the sake of letting the Americans do whatever they want? I doubt it. Wars have been started for less. And China would retaliate to a nuclear strike with a nuclear strike. America is not about to become a nuclear wasteland for a war it didn't choose to start.

Why would an Israeli strike be a nuclear strike? And why would China want to start a war with the US?

Quote:

If Iran responds to being bombed it's Iran's fault for starting a war? Never heard anything funnier.

Unfortunately, Iran is completely responsible for the continuation of its nuclear program as well as the shameful proxy war it is fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by FireGarden

When did I say Iran was a neutral third party?

So then you accept that Israel has every right to attack Iran?

Originally Posted by FireGarden

You think it's willing to have its economy put under huge pressure for the sake of letting the Americans do whatever they want? I doubt it. Wars have been started for less. And China would retaliate to a nuclear strike with a nuclear strike. America is not about to become a nuclear wasteland for a war it didn't choose to start.

Striking the US with nukes is about China's only recourse. They simply don't have the capability to project conventional forces to Iran, or anywhere else for that matter.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Originally Posted by FireGarden

When did I say Iran was a neutral third party?



You think it's willing to have its economy put under huge pressure for the sake of letting the Americans do whatever they want? I doubt it. Wars have been started for less. And China would retaliate to a nuclear strike with a nuclear strike. America is not about to become a nuclear wasteland for a war it didn't choose to start.





Doubtful they would set it back by a day. If Iran has a secret nuclear weapons programme, then no-one knows where it is. Which kind of makes it difficult to bomb. If they did know where it is, then it kind of poses the question why that location hasn't been searched.

Plus there's the old Russian joke: Of course Iran stopped its nuclear weapons programme in 2003... They'd finished it.



No. I mean they's bomb US forces in the Gulf. And choke off oil supply routes.



For those who want to bomb Iran and aren't under the impression that the Iranians will just sit there and take it. Especially under their current political circumstances. They're probably praying for an outside enemy right now.



Yes, it would be. Otherwise why is America reluctant to bomb Iran? Bush would have done it if he shared your assessment of the Iranian response. He didn't. He chose to avoid all out war.



LOL.
If Iran responds to being bombed it's Iran's fault for starting a war? Never heard anything funnier. We're so lucky that Bush was smarter than you. Because China sure as hell isn't going to blame Iran under those circumstances. I don't expect Russia will either. Though Russia will probably love the higher fuel prices.

Quote:

Doubtful they would set it back by a day. If Iran has a secret nuclear weapons programme, then no-one knows where it is. Which kind of makes it difficult to bomb. If they did know where it is, then it kind of poses the question why that location hasn't been searched.

Plus there's the old Russian joke: Of course Iran stopped its nuclear weapons programme in 2003... They'd finished it.

Theres a lot more known than apparently you are aware of

Quote:

No. I mean they's bomb US forces in the Gulf. And choke off oil supply routes.

No they wouldnt- they dont have the capability to initiate and sustain such an operation. Their conventional war fighting capability is somewhat weak

Quote:

For those who want to bomb Iran and aren't under the impression that the Iranians will just sit there and take it. Especially under their current political circumstances. They're probably praying for an outside enemy right now.



Yes, it would be. Otherwise why is America reluctant to bomb Iran? Bush would have done it if he shared your assessment of the Iranian response. He didn't. He chose to avoid all out war.

What do you think we are over here building more bases, airfields and increasing troop levels for? The Taliban?

Thats one of those "secrets" that everybody knows LOL. The Iranians know it too- thats why they are itching to start it before major forces are ready

Quote:

Because China sure as hell isn't going to blame Iran under those circumstances. I don't expect Russia will either. Though Russia will probably love the higher fuel prices

They will toe their standard lines they always do ( I love their stances on "human rights") but neither of them trust Iran and neither of them are capable of doing anything about it

[INRM]

The U.S. cannot go to blows with Israel.

First of all, if we engaged their air-force we'd lose. They have way better technology than we do in terms of missile-jammers, electronics, and missiles (ever heard of the Rafael Python V?), and they have far more skilled pilots, and they have a far greater experience in fighting wars than we do.

Secondly, I think Israel, so long as it doesn't have an unreasonable chance of dragging us into a war with Iran, *should* bomb Iran and end their nuclear weapons program.

Additionally, a lot of Jewish people in this country, including some servicemen, are zionistic and there is a possibility a significant number would support Israel over us, they'd start spying for Israel and helping the Mossad out.


INRM
(Hope I don't disappear, have a heart-attack, die mysteriously, get some incurable cancer or disease, or end up arrested on bogus charges for saying what I said)

[FireGarden]

Originally Posted by WildCat

So then you accept that Israel has every right to attack Iran?

Yes. And Iran has every right to respond. And America has every right to stop it getting that far -- inlcuding the right to shoot down Israeli fighters/bombers.

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE

No they wouldnt- they dont have the capability to initiate and sustain such an operation. Their conventional war fighting capability is somewhat weak.


What do you think we are over here building more bases, airfields and increasing troop levels for? The Taliban?

Thats one of those "secrets" that everybody knows LOL. The Iranians know it too- thats why they are itching to start it before major forces are ready.

So... All those years Bush and Cheney had the opportunity, they just couldn't get enough forces in the area. They just couldn't dig the bases deep enough, or get enough protection for the navy in the area. And it has taken this long to get ready because Iran is weak and the world would just shrug its shoulders. Glad you're here to tell us these things.

Should the Americans wait until they're ready, or should they launch the war when Israel is tired of waiting? That is the topic of the thread.

[Skeptic]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

Either he is totally off his rocker, or the man simply HATES jews.

And, in both cases, a perfect match for his former boss.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Originally Posted by FireGarden

So... All those years Bush and Cheney had the opportunity, they just couldn't get enough forces in the area. They just couldn't dig the bases deep enough, or get enough protection for the navy in the area. And it has taken this long to get ready because Iran is weak and the world would just shrug its shoulders. Glad you're here to tell us these things.

Should the Americans wait until they're ready, or should they launch the war when Israel is tired of waiting? That is the topic of the thread.

First things first, apparently you didnt get the memo

[LONGTABBER PE]

Originally Posted by INRM

The U.S. cannot go to blows with Israel.

First of all, if we engaged their air-force we'd lose. They have way better technology than we do in terms of missile-jammers, electronics, and missiles (ever heard of the Rafael Python V?), and they have far more skilled pilots, and they have a far greater experience in fighting wars than we do.

Secondly, I think Israel, so long as it doesn't have an unreasonable chance of dragging us into a war with Iran, *should* bomb Iran and end their nuclear weapons program.

Additionally, a lot of Jewish people in this country, including some servicemen, are zionistic and there is a possibility a significant number would support Israel over us, they'd start spying for Israel and helping the Mossad out.


INRM
(Hope I don't disappear, have a heart-attack, die mysteriously, get some incurable cancer or disease, or end up arrested on bogus charges for saying what I said)

What Israel are you talking about? The one WE helped train and build and currently support with technology?

Their "skill" and "experience" are more urban legend than fact.

They are tough, I'll grant you but not the best by far- equipment or people.

[Hutch]

Look, the argument is simple; if we detect (with no prior coordination or notification by the Israeli Government--this is the CRITICAL POINT) a large mission (50+ planes may be required) heading over Iraqi airspace bound for Iran, what do we (the United States) do?

And while wildcat think the mission could be done by skirting around Iraq, the logistics problems would be immense.

Option 1 is send up planes to force them to turn around, or engage them if they refuse (and I don't believe for a moment that US pilots and commanders would refuse orders by the Commander-In-Chief; that would be the beginning of the end of American democracy). The consequences would be (1) extraordinary chilly relations between the US and Israel, with Isreal depending more on Russia and her allies for aid and weapons. (2) General approval by Middle East/European/Russian/Chinese governments (albeit most would like to see the Iranian program set back) (3) Unknown Iranian response--maybe favorable toward negotiations with the US, maybe even more belligerent believing the occupant of the White House is weak.

Option 2 is to let the mission go forward, to whatever fate awaits it (and there is no guarantee that any one mission will significantly set back the program and the risks are much greater than in Saddams' day). The consequneces would be (1) Utter condemnation by all Middle East and Muslim countries (even if they silently approve of the defanging of Iran, they would have no choice with their populace) with various embargos and cutting of diplomatic ties. (2) A Iranian response (and they MUST RESPOND--any government that after all they have said and preached did not respond would be considered impotent and weak by their own people, who aren't to thrilled with the leadership anyway) which at a minimum will mean an attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz and perhaps the infiltration of thousands of guerillas into Iraq. (3) Pressure economically by China and Russia on the United States and Europe to 'restrain' Israel, lest valuable oil supplies go wanting (and given the level of US debt to China and Western European dependence on Russian gas and oil, they MUST be listened to). (4) A major resurgence of terrorism around the world, to include the United States (this I admit is more speculation than the other points, but I think it is a fair estimation).

So what is in America's best interests? Hopefully some smart folks at Defense and State have been thinking about this long before Obama took the oath of office.

All the above said, the thought that Israel would act without informing the United States, the one Great Power that they have known they could depend on for the last 40-50 years, is not conceivable. It would be a breach of trust and any damage suffered by the United States or it's troops due to a surprise (to the US Government) Israeli raid would damage relations between the two countries, perhaps irrevocably.

IMHO as always.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Originally Posted by Hutch

All the above said, the thought that Israel would act without informing the United States, the one Great Power that they have known they could depend on for the last 40-50 years, is not conceivable. It would be a breach of trust and any damage suffered by the United States or it's troops due to a surprise (to the US Government) Israeli raid would damage relations between the two countries, perhaps irrevocably.

IMHO as always.

I think you pretty much nailed it on that one.

However- I do not rule out a "first strike" ( probably by us to keep Israel from doing it for some of the reasons you listed) and fully expect to see combat in Iran in the not too distant future.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

Pure insanity.

Brezinski wants American pilots to commit acts of war against a closely allied democracy in protection of a sworn enemy of the United States, one that has been killing US servicemen in Afghanistan and Iraq, and defending thier illegal nuclear weapons program?

Either he is totally off his rocker, or the man simply HATES jews.

I respectfully disagree with you. Zbig the Prig is pretty much right. The Iraqi Air Force is, as of this time and place, pretty much a non funcitonal organization in re ensuring sovereignty of Iraqi air space. US still has de facto control and responsibility for the sanctity of Iraqi air space. Given our alliance with Maliki's elected and legitimate Iraqi government, which is pretty much what our various security and forces agreements amount to -- an alliance at least in the near term -- we owe him good service as guardians of his airspace until his Air Force is ramped up and "safe for solo" on their own.

Look at that again: as it stands right now, Iraq is a US ally.

It therefore makes infinite sense to shoot down ANY armed intruder over Iraqi air space, thus honoring our security agreements with the Iraqi government. (Hell, if the USAF will shoot down US Army helicopters over Iraq, there is no reason not to shoot down Israeli aircraft over Iraq. That was my cheap shot at the USAF. )

Let us imagine that Saddam Hussein's Air Force was still intact and flying. If IAF flies over his airspace to attack Iran, (and he didn't make a deal with them under the table to allow this) he and his Air Force would endeavour to shoot down armed planes violating his. His AF went the way of the plains buffalo. The new sheriff in town is the US Joint Forces Air Commander (JFAC), and he will be until Iraqi Air Force Version 2.0 is through alpha and beta testing, and is ready for release.

Zbig is not nuts. He sees clearly what US security treaty obligations to Iraq are.

Also, the threat of that ought to keep the IAF guessing, and act as a deterrent to war.

Deterrent's to war are often a good idea.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by WildCat

That's stretching the definition quite a bit. A bit too far IMHO.


I'm not a military law expert, so I really can't elaborate more except to say that it's obviously not treason.

Has anyone in the US ever been charged with treason for refusing an order?

UCMJ has a different category of offense for that. The charge isn't treason.

Article 92:

892. ART. 92. FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION
Any person subject to this chapter who--
(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or
(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;
shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Article 90

ASSAULTING OR WILLFULLY DISOBEYING SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER.
Any person subject to this chapter who--
(1) strikes his superior commissioned officer or draws or lifts up any weapon or offers any violence against him while he is in the execution of his officer; or
(2) willfully disobeys a lawful command of his superior commissioned officer;
shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, and if the offense is committed at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.

ART. 99. MISBEHAVIOR BEFORE THE ENEMY
Any person subject to this chapter who before or in the presence of the enemy--
(1) runs away;
(2) shamefully abandons, surrenders, or delivers up any command, unit, place, or military property which it is his duty to defend;
(3) through disobedience, neglect, or intentional misconduct endangers the safety of any such command, unit, place, or military property;
(4) casts away his arms or ammunition;
(5) is guilty of cowardly conduct;
(6) quits his place of duty to plunder or pillage;
(7) causes false alarms in any command, unit, or place under control of the armed forces;
(8) willfully fails to do his utmost to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy any enemy troops, combatants, vessels, aircraft, or any other thing, which it is his duty so to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy; or
(9) does not afford all practicable relief and assistance to any troops, combatants, vessels, or aircraft of the armed forces belonging to the United States or their allies when engaged in battle;
shall be punished by death or such punishment as a court- martial may direct.

FWIW, none of that is treason, though some of it may be cowardly or dishonorable.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by FireGarden

Yes. And Iran has every right to respond.

If they responded by going after the US directly they'd be in for a world of hurt.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Hutch

And while wildcat think the mission could be done by skirting around Iraq, the logistics problems would be immense.

If Israel has tanker aircraft I don't see this as being an "immense" problem. No different from when the US had to divert through the Straits of Gibralter after France and Spain refused to allow US planes based in the UK to fly over their air space to bomb Libya in response to the Achille Lauro hijacking back in the 80s.

And it looks like Israel may have been planning this route for years:

Quote:

Alongside these missions however, the International Squadron, also known as Squadron 120, is mainly responsible for the midair refueling of the IAF's wide array of F-15 and F-16 fighter jets. With Iran racing toward nuclear power and estimations that a military strike is a possible option to stop its nuclear program, this capability is turning into a strategic asset.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...=1176152838805

If Israel does decide to try to take out Iran's nuclear capability this is the way they'd get there IMHO. Really, it's their only option. No Iraqi overflight necessary.

eta:
Also from that article:

Quote:

"Flying through Jordan without the explicit or implicit permission of the Jordanians would hurt relations with a friendly Arab state," Brom wrote in a recent article in the book Getting Ready for a Nuclear Iran. "Flying over Iraq without coordination with the United States would lead to a clash with US interceptors."

[Cleon]

Aside from Hutch's spot-on observations, I find the possibility of Obama ordering a shoot-down of Israeli fighters to be completely unrealistic. The political fallout would be absolutely disastrous for him and the Democratic party. That would cause a mass defection to the Republicans - not just from the Democrats' massive support from the Jewish community, but also from the moderate/conservative Democrats. They would, in effect, be handing over the next election or three to the other side of the aisle.

That's not to say Obama would allow Israel to attack Iran without consequences; as others have noted, to do so would effectively allow Israel to declare war on Iran on the US' behalf, and that's simply a horrible, horrible idea at the moment. Even in the snowballs-chance-in-hell possibility that the US would remain neutral, the very last thing Obama needs is a war fought literally over Iraq.

Also, rhetoric aside, I find the possibility of Israel launching a unilateral attack against Iran to be fairly unrealistic as well, unless Netanyahu has completely lost his marbles.

Even aside from Iraq, an Israeli strike force would have to go through one or more of the following countries: Turkey, Syria, Jordan, and/or Saudi Arabia - none of whom would be willing to allow them to do so, and with the exception of Syria, they all have modern US-built fighter jets (to say nothing of surface-to-air capabilities). This would, quite probably, start a regional war--and even if the US was 100% behind Israel, frankly we can't afford it. The Iraqi "government" is shaky at best, and Afghanistan is making Iraq look positively utopian.

In short...Beat your chest all you want about Israel having the "right" to attack Iran, but you better damn well hope it doesn't happen. Nothing, and I mean nothing, good would come of it.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Cleon

Even aside from Iraq, an Israeli strike force would have to go through one or more of the following countries: Turkey, Syria, Jordan, and/or Saudi Arabia

Nope, they could go over the Red Sea and into the Indian Ocean without going over any other country's territory.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Cleon

In short...Beat your chest all you want about Israel having the "right" to attack Iran, but you better damn well hope it doesn't happen. Nothing, and I mean nothing, good would come of it.

Which means Obama is stuck with warning Israelis not to do it (we had a thread on that I think a few months ago, it was in the news). Thus, if they try while the USAF is the de facto guarantor of Iraqi Air Space, he is stuck with shooting at least one down and warning the others to return to base.

At stake, as you so clearly pointed out, is preventing a regional conflict, and destroying our position with multiple Arab and Muslim allied nations in the region.

Obama has no choice, internal politics considered: he has to stop them, or our political among numerous allies in the Persian Gulf evaporates.

(Unless, of course, the Saudis (and the rest of them) do as has been rumored, give the IAF a nod and a wink and a free corridor due to their own distaste for Iran ... and then try to blame us! )

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Nope, they could go over the Red Sea and into the Indian Ocean without going over any other country's territory.

Where do they base the tankers?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Where do they base the tankers?

Indian Ocean.

eta: I'm assuming you mean where do they stage the tankers?

[LONGTABBER PE]

Originally Posted by Cleon

Aside from Hutch's spot-on observations, I find the possibility of Obama ordering a shoot-down of Israeli fighters to be completely unrealistic. The political fallout would be absolutely disastrous for him and the Democratic party. That would cause a mass defection to the Republicans - not just from the Democrats' massive support from the Jewish community, but also from the moderate/conservative Democrats. They would, in effect, be handing over the next election or three to the other side of the aisle.

That's not to say Obama would allow Israel to attack Iran without consequences; as others have noted, to do so would effectively allow Israel to declare war on Iran on the US' behalf, and that's simply a horrible, horrible idea at the moment. Even in the snowballs-chance-in-hell possibility that the US would remain neutral, the very last thing Obama needs is a war fought literally over Iraq.

Also, rhetoric aside, I find the possibility of Israel launching a unilateral attack against Iran to be fairly unrealistic as well, unless Netanyahu has completely lost his marbles.

Even aside from Iraq, an Israeli strike force would have to go through one or more of the following countries: Turkey, Syria, Jordan, and/or Saudi Arabia - none of whom would be willing to allow them to do so, and with the exception of Syria, they all have modern US-built fighter jets (to say nothing of surface-to-air capabilities). This would, quite probably, start a regional war--and even if the US was 100% behind Israel, frankly we can't afford it. The Iraqi "government" is shaky at best, and Afghanistan is making Iraq look positively utopian.

In short...Beat your chest all you want about Israel having the "right" to attack Iran, but you better damn well hope it doesn't happen. Nothing, and I mean nothing, good would come of it.

excellent post and allow me to dovetail off a few specifics

Quote:

Afghanistan is making Iraq look positively utopian.

Most people dont realize just how true that really is- side point

Quote:

Also, rhetoric aside, I find the possibility of Israel launching a unilateral attack against Iran to be fairly unrealistic as well, unless Netanyahu has completely lost his marbles.

I think people often confuse the difference between a "surgical strike" and an all out offensive act leading to full scale war.

The difference here is the objective.

Israel ( like us and most countries) can absorb a conventional attack- sit back, evaluate and strike ( or not) based on whatever is decided.

An atom bomb isnt quite the same thing- you dont "absorb" that unless you have one hell of an appetite.

If Iran does obtain or shows the reasonable probability of obtaining- you can almost guarantee a preemptive strike ( even if it leads to all out war)

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Nope, they could go over the Red Sea and into the Indian Ocean without going over any other country's territory.

Not so much...Claimed territory (and airspace) doesn't end at land borders. Even going down the red sea would take them over Saudi and Yemen airspace, or various African countries (that, admittedly, don't really have the resources to stop them).

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Which means Obama is stuck with warning Israelis not to do it (we had a thread on that I think a few months ago, it was in the news). Thus, if they try while the USAF is the de facto guarantor of Iraqi Air Space, he is stuck with shooting at least one down and warning the others to return to base.

Well, not just warn; Israel depends on the United States militarily and financially. Cutting that, even a fraction, would have a profound effect on Israel's ability to fight a war. And doing so would be a much easier sell politically than shooting down Israeli aircraft.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Cleon

Not so much...Claimed territory (and airspace) doesn't end at land borders. Even going down the red sea would take them over Saudi and Yemen airspace, or various African countries (that, admittedly, don't really have the resources to stop them).

Territorial limits only extend 12 miles, so no they do not have to fly through Saudi air space. They'd probably go over Eritrea's and Djibouti's and Somalia's air space, but there'd be nothing those countries could do about it.

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE

excellent post and allow me to dovetail off a few specifics

Thankye.

Quote:

Most people dont realize just how true that really is- side point

Very true. The United States and the "Afghan" government () basically control Kabul, and not very well. But you're right, it's a side point.

Quote:

I think people often confuse the difference between a "surgical strike" and an all out offensive act leading to full scale war.

The difference here is the objective.

Israel ( like us and most countries) can absorb a conventional attack- sit back, evaluate and strike ( or not) based on whatever is decided.

An atom bomb isnt quite the same thing- you dont "absorb" that unless you have one hell of an appetite.

If Iran does obtain or shows the reasonable probability of obtaining- you can almost guarantee a preemptive strike ( even if it leads to all out war)

Correct...And like Afghanistan, I don't think people have a very accurate impression of Iran. This is not some backwater, third world country. This is a modern, industrialized nation. I mean, they've got their own homegrown space program, for crying out loud. Even without nuclear weapons, Iran is more than capable of striking back at Israel, and don't think for a second they won't.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Cleon

Correct...And like Afghanistan, I don't think people have a very accurate impression of Iran. This is not some backwater, third world country. This is a modern, industrialized nation. I mean, they've got their own homegrown space program, for crying out loud. Even without nuclear weapons, Iran is more than capable of striking back at Israel, and don't think for a second they won't.

By "homegrown space program" you mean ICBM program?

At any rate, aren't they mostly copies of N. Korean missiles?

[LONGTABBER PE]

Originally Posted by Cleon

Correct...And like Afghanistan, I don't think people have a very accurate impression of Iran. This is not some backwater, third world country. This is a modern, industrialized nation. I mean, they've got their own homegrown space program, for crying out loud. Even without nuclear weapons, Iran is more than capable of striking back at Israel, and don't think for a second they won't.

No they dont. People over in CONUS often get their information from biased or incomplete sources and color it with the saturation of "Hollywood" as their visualization.

Iran is well known in the region for being aggressive,explosive and extreme and unpredictable.

Even there are other Muslim countries- they are more "moderate" and realize the damage war will do to their country. They may support them in principle but not so much with real goods or troops.

Its also no secret to anyone that the massive build up of ISAF forces in the region has Iran as a prime target. ( it aint all about the Taliban)

Its an uneasy peace but a peace.

Iran feels the pressure no doubt. Internally and externally.

For them to be a nuclear threat isnt going to be allowed. It will be stopped. War or not.

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by WildCat

By "homegrown space program" you mean ICBM program?

I mean they built their own rocket, and their own satellite, and successfully launched it into space. (This has been verified by NASA.)

That's not something you do without some serious know-how, technology, and industry.

Quote:

At any rate, aren't they mostly copies of N. Korean missiles?

The rocket was derived from the Shahab line, which started off as a modification from Scuds acquired from Libya and Syria, and later models borrowed from North Korean technology.

However...Given that Iran's launch actually worked, I'm going to say it probably didn't borrow all that heavily from the DPRK.

[Marc39]

Originally Posted by Cleon

Israel depends on the United States militarily and financially.

People who post on the Internet should "depend" on the facts.

Israel is one of the 50 richest countries in the world based on per capita income.

Global investment bank Morgan Stanley recently upgraded Israel to developed market status and Israel rose to 3rd place from 9th place in Morgan Stanley's list of 20 emerging markets.

Israeli-based Teva, the world's largest generic pharma company, has a market capitalization of $50 billion.

Warren Buffett, the world's richest man and perhaps the greatest investor of all time, recently purchased a successful Israeli manuacturing company and in visiting Israel, marveled at Israel's tremendous achievements and in such a brief period of time.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Indian Ocean.

eta: I'm assuming you mean where do they stage the tankers?

No, I meant where would they base them, and what signature (intel) do those tankers give off when they take off?

[Marc39]

Originally Posted by Cleon; This is not some backwater, third world country. This is a modern, industrialized nation. I mean, they've got their own [I

homegrown space program[/i], for crying out loud. Even without nuclear weapons, Iran is more than capable of striking back at Israel, and don't think for a second they won't.

Iran is, in effect, "some backwater, third world country" blessed with oil, which it had absolutely nothing to do in creating. In other words, Iran is no different than any other Muslim and Arab craphole in the Middle East...

US State Department...

Quote:

Today, Iran's economy is marked by a bloated and inefficient state sector, a reliance on the oil sector (which provides over 85% of government revenues), and statist policies that create major distortions throughout. Most economic activity is controlled by the state. Although the Supreme Leader issued a decree in July 2006 to privatize 80% of the shares of most government-owned companies, private sector activity is typically limited to small-scale workshops, farming, and services. President Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad has failed to make any notable progress in fulfilling the goals of the nation's latest five-year plan. A combination of price controls and subsidies (on food and energy in particular) continue to weigh down the economy, and administrative controls, widespread corruption, and other rigidities undermine the potential for private-sector-led growth. As a result of these inefficiencies, significant informal market activity flourishes and shortages are common. High oil prices in recent years have doubled export earnings since 2004 and have enabled Iran to amass nearly $65 billion in foreign exchange reserves. Yet this increased revenue has not eased economic hardships, which include high unemployment (11% according to government estimates) and double-digit inflation, and the economy has only seen moderate growth. Iran has an educated population, and economic inefficiency and insufficient investment (both foreign and domestic) have prompted an increasing number of Iranians to seek employment overseas, resulting in significant "brain drain.

[Marc39]

Originally Posted by FireGarden

I think it is a good idea.
The alternative is to allow Israel to declare war on behalf of America.

How many American targets are there in the middle east? How many are you willing to have taken out in retaliation? And why on Earth should Iran accept that America is a neutral third party when American bombs are being dropped on Iran from American planes? -- Even if those bombs and planes have an Israeli flag painted on them.

If you want America to go to war with Iran, that is one thing. But no matter how dumb starting a war with Iran sounds to me, letting Israel declare the war for you sounds even dumber.

If another American war pushes oil to 4-500 dollars a barrel, I think the world may decide that America costs more than it's worth. China has oil interests too, you know.

Permit me to interrupt your gibberish-infused post with some clarity and rational thought: Israel, like any other state, has the inherent right to self-defense. Any state confronted with blatantly existential threats by another country would not only take preemptive countermeasures, they would be obligated to do so, which is the first and last duty of every government.

Israel has no less right to self-preservation nor is the Israeli governmentany less beholden to protect its population.

Until recently, Ajad's threats against Israel had been dismissed as benign rants of a clown with no real power in Iran. However, with the Supreme Clown now echoing unequivocal threats to Israel's national security and the safety of 7 million Israelis, including over one million Israeli Muslims, Israel is morally and legally bound to take military action against Iran.

Those 72 virgins better be prepared for working overtime.

[The Fool]

Originally Posted by Marc39

with some clarity and rational thought: Israel, like any other state, has the inherent right to self-defense. Any state confronted with blatantly existential threats by another country would not only take preemptive countermeasures, they would be obligated to do so, which is the first and last duty of every government.

Israel has no less right to self-preservation nor is the Israeli governmentany less beholden to protect its population.

Until recently, Ajad's threats against Israel had been dismissed as benign rants of a clown with no real power in Iran. However, with the Supreme Clown now echoing unequivocal threats to Israel's national security and the safety of 7 million Israelis, including over one million Israeli Muslims, Israel is morally and legally bound to take military action against Iran.

Those 72 virgins better be prepared for working overtime.

Israel failed to attack Iran today. Have they failed in thier moral and legal duty?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

No, I meant where would they base them, and what signature (intel) do those tankers give off when they take off?

I doubt Israel is stupid enough to only fly their tankers when they are on a long-range combat mission. Surely they engage in practice excercises at least several times per week.

[pchams]

/morons
/learn some diplomacy

Secondly, if the Americans, or the Israelis wish to shoot down anything, and you hear about it, it'll be spun like silk.

[Marc39]

Originally Posted by pchams

/morons
/learn some diplomacy

Because, Iran, after all, is the paragon of correct diplomatic protocol, right?