| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 8:13 am Post subject: Israel asks U.S. for arms, air corridor to attack Iran |
 |
|
And the Americans refused:
| Quote: |
The security aid package the United States has refused to give Israel for the past few months out of concern that Israel would use it to attack nuclear facilities in Iran included a large number of "bunker-buster" bombs, permission to use an air corridor to Iran, an advanced technological system and refueling planes.
Officials from both countries have been discussing the Israeli requests over the past few months. Their rejection would make it very difficult for Israel to attack Iran, if such a decision is made.
About a month ago, Haaretz reported that the Bush administration had turned down an Israeli request for certain security items that could upgrade Israel's capability to attack Iran. The U.S. administration reportedly saw the request as a sign preparations were moving ahead for an Israeli attack on Iran.
...
The Israeli requests were discussed during President George W. Bush's visit to Israel in May, as well as during Defense Minister Ehud Barak's visit to Washington in July. In a series of meetings at a very senior level, following Bush's visit, the Americans made clear to the Israelis that for now they are sticking to the diplomatic option to halt the Iranian nuclear project and that Jerusalem does not have a green light from Washington for an attack on Iran.
|
http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1019989.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
fiveeagles
Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 8:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thank God!
An attack on Iran by Israel will start WW3. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 8:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Well, ww3 is an exaggeration. A regional conflict isn't totally impossible. I'd be more worried about retaliation by hizballah inside the US and Europe. Also, the flow of oil would certainly be disrupted and refining capacity in the region possibly destroyed. The price spike in oil + terrorist attacks in the US would cause an economic depression. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 8:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| And the Americans refused |
Again, my understanding is that the SecDef, the former theater commander, and several retired general officers (almost certainly speaking for the high command off-the-record) have expressly opposed any Iranian war. I seriously doubt the W. Bush Administration could launch such a war, even one ostensibly fought by Israel, in its remaining months. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 9:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bush Administration is showing restraint. Excellent. This means that the U.S. gains leverage over Iran. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 2:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How do you see that meaning, exactly? From the Iraq Study Group's advice or somewhere else? How do we measure whether and how much such decisions change the Iranian situation?
Last edited by Gopher on Thu Sep 11, 2008 2:27 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leslie Cheswyck
Joined: 31 May 2003
Location: University of Western Chile
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Maybe he means it's just saying 'nice doggy, nice doggy' while reaching for a big stick. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
contrarian
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If the Bush administration did anything they would OK is quietly and then have it done after the election and before the new President takes office. Plausible deniability as in Syria a few months ago.
When the Israelis took out Osirak the US had said NO!
Reagans response was "darn good bombing". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jandar
Joined: 11 Jun 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| contrarian wrote: |
If the Bush administration did anything they would OK is quietly and then have it done after the election and before the new President takes office. Plausible deniability as in Syria a few months ago.
When the Israelis took out Osirak the US had said NO!
Reagans response was "darn good bombing". |
Reagan? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
contrarian
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yes Reagan. The Osirak reactor on Iraq was bombed by the Isrealis. Official US policy was NO, Reagan's approval was clear. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Milwaukiedave
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Location: Goseong
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thankfully the US didn't comply with the request.
I'm curious what other people think, if Israel attacked Iran, given the fact that the US is still in Iraq, would it not be pretty much a given that we would get sucked into the conflict as well?
(this is assuming that we didn't know or help Israel with an attack, despite what Iran accused us of doing) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This isnt good news.
First off, on iran blockign the worlds oil etc.
1. Iran doesnt have a stron enough navy to blockade the Strats of Hormuz Vesus the US naval presence there
2. iran wont doom itself by stopping the sale of oil, its biggest money maker
3. The fact is, diplomacy is NOT working. After 3 rounds of sanctions, and a 4th seemingly not coming due to Russia and China, Iran will eventuallly go nuclear if left unchecked
4.Israel will find a way to strike. and when they do, we will be blamed along with them, even if we did not approve, so best to aide them and make sure it succeeds |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| The Bush Administration is showing restraint. Excellent. This means that the U.S. gains leverage over Iran. |
How? since sanctions arent working, the longer we restrain israel the longer Iran has to develop its capability..itll be just like North Korea |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fiveeagles
Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Well, ww3 is an exaggeration. A regional conflict isn't totally impossible. I'd be more worried about retaliation by hizballah inside the US and Europe. Also, the flow of oil would certainly be disrupted and refining capacity in the region possibly destroyed. The price spike in oil + terrorist attacks in the US would cause an economic depression. |
Russia would defend Iran. What then? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fiveeagles wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| Well, ww3 is an exaggeration. A regional conflict isn't totally impossible. I'd be more worried about retaliation by hizballah inside the US and Europe. Also, the flow of oil would certainly be disrupted and refining capacity in the region possibly destroyed. The price spike in oil + terrorist attacks in the US would cause an economic depression. |
Russia would defend Iran. What then? |
Russia would not defend Iran. 1. the air strikes would be over before the russians mobilized a defense. No one is talking land invading Iran.. but a week long air campaign.
Once the bombings done, its done. russia cant undo it. all russia is likely to do is supply the Iranians with AA weaponry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
