Report: Pentagon worried that Israel doesn’t know where Iran’s nuke sites are
posted at 3:00 pm on July 6, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
An elaborate ruse, perhaps, cooked up by U.S. and Israeli intel to make Iran think we know less than we do? If so, it’s darned convincing: Adm. Mullen’s comments a few days ago about the inadvisability of an attack sure sounded sincere, and even Joe Lieberman conceded this morning that there’s a “caution light” flashing from the Pentagon in reply to Jack Reed insisting that in fact the light is red. Who’s ready for $12/gallon gas and a Middle East off the hinge in exchange for setting back Iran’s nuke program maybe three years?
Pentagon chiefs fear that Israeli plans for an attack on Iran’s nuclear programme will fail to destroy the facilities because neither the CIA nor Mossad knows where every base is located…
Gaps in the intelligence on the precise location and vulnerabilities of Iran’s facilities emerged during recent talks between Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the American Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Israeli generals, according to an official familiar with the discussions who has briefed Iran experts in Washington and London…
“The Americans had spies in Iran until they were rounded up in 2003 and now they do not have much by way of humint [human intelligence] on the ground. The Israelis have better information. But the Americans went away from the meetings unconvinced that the Israelis have enough intelligence on where to strike, and with little confidence that they will be able to destroy the nuclear programme.”
Left unmentioned is the fact that even if Israel does know where every last nuke site in Iran is and somehow manages to put a bomb on the target, there’s no guarantee that any major damage will be done. Do note the contradiction, though, between the idea that attacking Iran is futile because at least part of their nuclear infrastructure is secret and the idea that we don’t need to act now because western intel assures us they’re still years away from having a bomb. Both are staples of dovish arguments, which makes no sense. Either you think we know the extent of Iran’s program and can time our response accordingly or you don’t think we know, in which case we have to err on the side of caution by assuming the worst and acting sooner. How can anti-war types maintain both positions simultaneously? Simple — because they’re willing to let Iran have the bomb in order to avoid another war. That’s been their position all along but they can’t push it in those terms or else they’ll be seen, rightly, as weak and it’ll wreck the Democrats’ chances yet again. Unfortunately for them, Israel isn’t as willing, so someone had really better start pressing Obama and McCain to hash out their contingency plans for the aftermath of an IAF attack. The Democratic Party might be ready to gamble on a nuclear-armed Iran behaving like a Cold War rational actor, but Kadima surely is not.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 »
So tell them.
profitsbeard on July 6, 2008 at 3:05 PM
I strongly feel that we absolutely must prevent Islamists from getting nukes, and a mere three year delay, unless it can be followed by additional strikes to perpetually delay their program, is insufficient excepting the accompaniment a robust program to end Iran’s Islamist regime within that interval.
But due to the fickle nature of American politics we can’t always rely on having an administration willing to continue a policy of periodic attacks to prevent this eventuality or who would support a strong effort toward regime change. Even if we have a strong program that indeed does topple the mullahcracy, what guarantees do we have that another wont replace it, short of direct intervention?
This being the case, we must do a thorough job of ending the Islamists quest for nuclear weapons. If limited tactical strikes are insufficient due to inadequate intelligence then we will have to take more decisive measures to ensure the demise of the Iranian nuclear program.
Our future is at stake. We must do what must be done.
FloatingRock on July 6, 2008 at 3:20 PM
Can we fight a war during and economic depression? Between that and me being drafted next year, 2009 sucks already. I`ll see you guys on the front lines! :)
ThePrez on July 6, 2008 at 3:20 PM
And the Pentagon didn’t know about the Syrian reactor either…until it was gone.
Trust in U.S. Military, priceless.
Trust in U.S. intelligence services, worthless.
my .02 cents.
Limerick on July 6, 2008 at 3:22 PM
Don’t be so quick to judge…besides….didn’t we provide them (IAF), with the photos?
jerrytbg on July 6, 2008 at 3:32 PM
No problem. Level Tehran, invade the country, and completely eliminate all religious influence from the government, just as we did with Japan in WWII. Easy? No. Expensive? Yes. But far preferable to another 60 year Cold War, even if Iran doesn’t have and never will get nuclear weapons.
This is what the U.S. should have done 30 years ago. But better late than never.
JDPerren on July 6, 2008 at 3:34 PM
My money is on Israel’s intellignce and not our CIA. Remember, we didn’t know Pakistan was going nuclear till after the fact. Our long term energy policy shouldn’t be driven by Iran’s desire to rule the world. Cue,..some Beach Boys music.
a capella on July 6, 2008 at 3:34 PM
What should we tell them? Where to find WMDs in Iraq?
paul006 on July 6, 2008 at 3:37 PM
Please. They haven’t gotten it right since 45. Yalu River, Soviet H-bomb, Castro, Bay of Pigs, Ho Chi Minh, NORK nukes, Beruit, Fall of Russia, Colbart Towers, WTC1, Embassy bombings, USS Cole, 9/11, back track to Munich or the TWA hijackings, Lockerby.
The DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) is constrained just like the U.S. Military, handle intelligence and counter espinoge on U.S. military installations and war zones. The CIA is responsible for the rest, and feeding that info where it is needed.
I say scrap the damn CIA and replace it with the DIA. I trust the boys and girls from the academies one hell of a lot more then I trust the boys and girls from Harvard and Columbia.
Limerick on July 6, 2008 at 3:39 PM
I have to think that part of our agreement with NK over their nuclear program included help identifying Iranian nuclear efforts and their assistance.
It seems to me that this is why, in part, the Syrians are reportedly discussing rapprochement with Israel and the west. The Norks have given us their information on how they’ve helped the Syrians and now Syria finds itself with billions wasted on a program that is now useless.
Either that or the North Koreans have screwed us royally.
SteveMG on July 6, 2008 at 3:44 PM
Yeah, because we’ll have peace if Iran gets the bomb. They just want it for deterrence.
misterpeasea on July 6, 2008 at 3:44 PM
Go for it.
The alternative, continuing our utterly failed appeasement for nothing politics, is an Israel that is a glowing crater and a price per gallon that is whatever the mullahs, who are suddenly the heads of a nuclear power, decide it to be.
This is one can that we simply cannot afford to keep kicking down the road.
Misha I on July 6, 2008 at 3:50 PM
$12 a gallon gas is a bargain compared to NO gas.
Limerick on July 6, 2008 at 3:51 PM
Here is what awaits the negotiators of the world. Thanks Bill, you did a bang up job….
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7492456.stm
Stop. Talk. Walk back. Try to see their point of view…..
BAH!
Limerick on July 6, 2008 at 3:55 PM
No one knows nuthin.
Estimates like “3 years delay” are almost irrelevant, unless you imagine that you know what the world would look like the morning, week, month, and year after conclusion of an Israeli attack. Would Iran retaliate? If so, how and against whom? If not, how would that affect Iran’s prestige, and the viability of its governing coalition? In either event how would Israel, the U.S., and/or the rest of the world respond?
Unless Israel (or the US) is able to act with unerring precision and virtual finality, it’s harder to draw post-attack scenarios that merely set the clock back x number of years on the program, with everything else remaining the same, than to draw ones that lead to escalation, conflagration, and, for Iran, the end of the regime or devastation of the country - at transitory if somewhat high cost to Israel and the West.
CK MacLeod on July 6, 2008 at 3:57 PM
They didn’t know where syria had it’s stuff either.
tomas on July 6, 2008 at 3:58 PM
I`m hoping I get posted to some clerical job when I`m drafted cause my balance is crappy and all that gear would have me falling down all over.
Everyone chime in on their hopeful posting in the new non-volunteer army. :)
ThePrez on July 6, 2008 at 4:02 PM
Of course the Israelis don’t know where they all are. They probably don’t even know where most of them are. How would they? Would the Iranians be so S-T-U-P-I-D as to put them on Google maps? They probably have more phony sites than they have real sites.
I know one thing for certain the Israelis better remember Niccolo’s advice.
MB4 on July 6, 2008 at 4:04 PM
Do you think that FDR ended the depression of the 1930s ?
mred on July 6, 2008 at 4:09 PM
Limerick on July 6, 2008 at 3:39 PM
So where did the “before” photos come from? In any case…DIA…agreed.
jerrytbg on July 6, 2008 at 4:10 PM
Good point I suppose. I`m just worried about my mom. When I`m sent over there, what`s she going to do for money?
ThePrez on July 6, 2008 at 4:12 PM
mred on July 6, 2008 at 4:09 PM
I beleve the Japanese did…. No?
jerrytbg on July 6, 2008 at 4:15 PM
dmann on July 6, 2008 at 4:18 PM
She’ll do this.
JiangxiDad on July 6, 2008 at 4:22 PM
I really want Israel to bomb them but it is going to make fuel prices soar. We think $4 a gallon of gas is high just wait until this happens.
carbon_footprint on July 6, 2008 at 4:28 PM
Of course if anyone farts in Iran the prices go up. Take the chances Israel.
carbon_footprint on July 6, 2008 at 4:28 PM
Lets just say for the sake of discussion that Western intelligence agencies, in a Eureka moment, are correct in stating that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon.
That said, based on previous statements by high and low in Iran about removing Israel from the map, Iran is getting attacked. All we are discussing then is the how and when. Myself, I favor the top down approach in this 21st century struggle. That is to say, forgive my crassness, shoot the leaders, just the leaders. Make them take personal responsibility for speaking out of turn. There’s a reason god invented cruise missiles.
That approach is different from our 20th century methods, which regrettably will probably be used again by Israel and by proxy, the US. Hello stone age. It’s a hell of a way to make new friends.
So the pinata in the middle of the room is when. As usual I favor the sooner the better. Blood lust is not my game but getting the pain out of the way is. There will be hell to pay on the human and economic levels. It will be hard to determine which will be worse. Crude oil at or over $200 a barrel will be the equivalent of extreme, and I mean extreme, high blood pressure in the world patient–life threatening in fact. Therefore the essential question remains, do we want the ongoing slow boil of the frog or a momentary spike that we might recover from. I favor the spike, akin to my bubble analysis, where the price of oil goes parabolic and consequently collapses from whence it started.
Yes, I know, it’s a crossed fingers and toes strategy but what war isn’t. If we persist in this slow crawl towards a conflict that is coming, the price of crude will march ever higher leaving permanent ruin in its wake. At $144 a barrel it is happening already.
As to Israeli’s intelligence about Iran, when in doubt I always trust the Israelis. They, unlike the rest of the world, ourselves included, have their lives/nation on the line. It’s not a theoretical/philosophical tree hugging debate that they wage.
If McCain leads in the polls I think this whole gambit will be delayed still hoping for civil unrest inside Iran as their economic life grinds to a halt.
patrick neid on July 6, 2008 at 4:32 PM
Kadima actually would be willing to take the chance that Iran behaves like a rational cold war actor - but it looks like it’s going to be an election year.
Carl in Jerusalem on July 6, 2008 at 4:32 PM
Here are a few helpful pointers for you then.
If the enemy is in range, so are you.
Don’t look conspicuous, it draws fire.
The problem with the easy way out is that it has already been mined.
Try to look unimportant, they may be low on ammo.
The enemy invariably attacks on two occasions:
When you’re ready for them.
When you’re not ready for them.
Teamwork is essential; it gives them someone else to shoot at.
If you can’t remember, then the claymore IS pointed at you.
The enemy diversion you have been ignoring will be the main attack.
If your attack is going well, then it’s an ambush.
Never draw fire, it irritates everyone around you.
If you build yourself a bunker that’s tough for the enemy to get into quickly, then you won’t be able to get out of it quickly either.
Never forget that your weapon is made by the lowest bidder.
Friendly fire isn’t.
If the sergeant can see you, so can the enemy.
The most dangerous thing in the world is a second lieutenant with a map and a compass.
If at first you don’t succeed, call in an air strike.
The enemy never watches until you make a mistake.
Whenever you have plenty of ammo, you never miss. Whenever you are low on ammo, you can’t hit the broad side of a barn.
Field experience is something you don’t get until just after you need it.
If enough data is collected, a board of inquiry can prove anything.
The one item you need is always in short supply.
The worse the weather, the more you are required to be out in it.
The weapon that usually jams when you need it the most is the M60.
When you have sufficient supplies and ammo, the enemy takes two weeks to attack. When you are low on supplies and ammo the enemy decides to attack that night.
A Purple Heart just goes to prove that were you smart enough to think of a plan, stupid enough to try it, and lucky enough to survive.
Murphy was a grunt
MB4 on July 6, 2008 at 4:34 PM
That’s the way I see it too.
JiangxiDad on July 6, 2008 at 4:34 PM
The Donks said the entire Mid East would go up in flames at the start of the ‘93 Iraq war and before the current one. Nothing happened. Every single country was glad to see Saddam HUSSEIN dethroned and hung. There is even less sympathy for the Iranians. They are not Arab like the rest of their neighbors and don’t have a lot in common with them. No one is going to come to Iran’s aid. And if they try to block the Straits or disrupt the Mid East economy in any other they will catch hell from their neighbors. Oil may spike even higher briefly after an Israeli attack but it won’t last that long.
JonRoss on July 6, 2008 at 4:44 PM
great minds…..
patrick neid on July 6, 2008 at 4:57 PM
I hope you are right. I think it in the long run it would do much good for oil if the Iranian government gets overthrown and undergoes reform. I think the the biggest reason no one has taken action against Iran is the fact that the population is quite pro-West. Any action against the country might rally them to the government. I think the overwhelming hope has been that the citizenry would revolt and take over.
carbon_footprint on July 6, 2008 at 5:04 PM
Some pretty good advice even though I’m sure I’ve read it somewhere before.
TooTall on July 6, 2008 at 5:07 PM
Apparently they’re now in Canada… just FYI.
Lehosh on July 6, 2008 at 5:14 PM
Not enough time. We’ve fiddle faddled away the last 5 years going through diplomatic motions and allowed a timeline crisis to develop. It is very similar to the U.N. song and dance we went through with Saddam before we finally admitted he’d been playing us for fools. Iranian citizens can’t displace the present regime. Iran has delighted in leading the European diplomats around by the nose while putting the final touches on the 12th inman project which will be used as the Final Solution for the “Jew problem.”.
a capella on July 6, 2008 at 5:19 PM
I think this also goes to the point of those that say don’t worry, don’t bother, if it happens the Israelis will just bomb the facility. That’s like saying, “You won’t shoot me the cops will stop you,” as the gun is pointed at you.
- The Cat
MirCat on July 6, 2008 at 5:20 PM
[MB4 on July 6, 2008 at 4:34 PM]
Nice.
Dusty on July 6, 2008 at 5:25 PM
patrick neid: Way back in the CQ days, you advocated taking out the despotic leaders. Like JiangxiDad, I agree with your reasoning. In fact, such a plan would address the concerns that carbon_footprint expresses about not inflaming the pro-West Iranian population against us. There is enough economic unrest in Iran currently that ridding the country of the mullah-tyrants could have positive consequences. Our troops would never have to have boots on the ground.
onlineanalyst on July 6, 2008 at 5:27 PM
If we can’t find their nuclear sites, how do we pinpoint their leaders? Our biggest intelligence failure is not having good in country resources thus having to do everything with high tech and third parties. We can thank the Frank Church school of thought for that.
a capella on July 6, 2008 at 5:41 PM
Who said Israel is going to use JDAMs, Hellfires, or Daisy Cutters?
They wouldn’t dare do THAT? Really?
Israel is going to do what she feels is right. Embarrassing the U.S. is low on the priority list. With the Wesley Clarks and Valerie Plames running the war for the U.S. who can blame Israel for giving us the finger?
Limerick on July 6, 2008 at 5:43 PM
Most of them have been around since WWII. Some things never change, so they are still good advice.
MB4 on July 6, 2008 at 5:45 PM
Report: Pentagon worried that Israel doesn’t know where Iran’s nuke sites areShould say: Report: Israel did not tell the Cia/NY Times, where Iran’s nuke sites are
StuLongIsland on July 6, 2008 at 5:52 PM
Israel doesn’t have to hit all the nuclear facilities. It just has to hit the known ones, the air defenses (of course), the ballistic missile sites, and (most importantly) Iran’s gasoline refineries/oil ports.
It’s an end game scenario.
scottm on July 6, 2008 at 5:55 PM
I don’t mind if she does. I imagine they were hightly amused in a derisive way at that CIA NIE report saying Iran wasn’t in the nuke business anymore. that did wonders for our credibility. I’ll also bet they have some assets on the ground in Iran who know a helluva lot more about what’s going on than Jay Rockefeller, Carl Levin, or the Joint Chiefs.
a capella on July 6, 2008 at 6:01 PM
Agreed, a capella, regarding the damage Frank Church committed. It’s too bad that we have congresscritters so determined to handicap our intelligence services.
About two weeks ago, NRO had a lengthy film clip of a huge protest by citizens in one of the more religiously conservative Islamic cities of Iran. The Iranians are ripe for revolt.
onlineanalyst on July 6, 2008 at 6:02 PM
AS an American, I say go Israel. Any American that want’s freedom is with the Israelies. The left will scream but so what. This feastering scab that is Iran will get it’s due.
AMartinez on July 6, 2008 at 6:04 PM
The exact same people who leaked on wednesday that Iran was ‘dramatically halting its enrichment program’, which was put in press thursday / friday, are one & the same people who then leak this latest piece of info.
There is a strong contingent of left leaning think tanks, & American Iranians who are opposed no matter what to military action. They are leaking this info which always has a nugget of truth to it, but the rest is spinned, all to prevent military action.. We already know that an Israeli or US attack will not destroy the entire Iranian program, this is admitted as much openly by Israel, by the USA. But that is used as the basis for ‘all new news as spin’ by these consultants. The program will be severely damaged, delayed by many years in an attack not annihilated.
Precisely my friend, you hit on it. These think tanks are openly on record of opposing any military solution period, they consult and are members of the realist camp, are well known, derive funding from the Tides foundation and other hard left leaning organizations etc. I know this because I read their writings regularly.
1st the spin comes out about a dramatic shift in Iranian policy to negotiations, of course that is bull but the headline effect is strong, then 48 hours later when the jig is up on the initial spin, it is followed by a deligitimization of the military option to counter the sucking motion of truth being revealed that Iran is not altering its position at all in the least, which strengthens the military hand which they oppose.. Always cited with sources of ‘Iranian experts’ who are in fact a small cadre of academics in liaison with former bureaucrats.
For instance, not quoted above but in that piece the notion that America’s entire humint network was destroyed by Iran in 2003, on what earth would that be leaked out by the Pentagon by a legit source, fiction that has only one purpose - discredit a military move no matter what. That came from Iranian state press, which is exactly where the dramatic shift on enrichment came from mid last week, as well. All this Iranian press is translated by these academics from farsi and used as ‘basis’ for sourcing, which is wrapped up with CIA & Pentagon former officials, which is spun-up for the anti war position.
These academics, think tanks etc are all openly supporting Obama & a dramatic shift in US policy towards full engagement / appeasement of Iran. I think you already know about Tides & other such orgs, that is the source of the funding for all this ‘expertise’. It will not surprise anyone that these same academics are part of the strong Walt Mersheimer crew maintaining that AIPAC is running US policy.. which is kind of funny.
The best part of all is that they leak a nugget of truth wrapped in copious amounts of processed cheese, the articles by Hersh et at all go up, then these same leakers use the subsequent stories based on their own spun leak agenda to re-enforce and build on their argument, round & round a self-perpetuating story. The oldest intel disinfo trick in the book.
Is the Pentagon worried about additional military action? Of course they are, that’s their fracken job! Is it based on this absurd story? Don’t fall for it gents. The Pentagon & the CIA have been stacked with former spooks who are anti admin leakers & spinners for some time now, they coordinate with these left think tanks & academics to push the agenda, the media is a willing participant.
I would wager that endless visits by Admirals visiting Israel recently are more to do with working on tying together systems, computer systems because Israel is being tied into the core US defense & radar computers, to coordinate Israel’s Arrow & missile defenses with the AEGIS and assorted US systems in the region, in order to properly attempt to defend against incoming Iranian ballistics and avoid having 200 ABMs launched against the same target, muting defenses in case a flare up occurs. This is the 2nd time in history such a co-mingling of systems has been on the table.
The Admiral was not in Israel looking at intel. He was being briefed on the 4 fronts we will face from attack, he visited those borders personally accompanied by our head military commanders, received our plans to bottle up those fronts in case hostilities flare. The intel is ongoing, sharing happening all the time at lower levels, nothing to do with the Admiral.
These same spinners told us Israel is bluffing last week with strike preparations, ANYTHING anything to stem a military strike.. Now panic that the disinfo on the bluff evaporated quickly, and the strike is closer than ever.. So more disinfo, more spin. Keep watching there’s plenty more coming.
saus on July 6, 2008 at 6:04 PM
I don’t know where my prior post went. Perhaps it will show up.
To further what I remarked in it, a capella, would Israel not have intelligence to pinpoint where some of the mullah leaders are?
onlineanalyst on July 6, 2008 at 6:05 PM
Indeed, we have fiddled with Iran for over 30 years now. I just hope the people of Iran realize that most of them and most of us are on the “same page” and we just want them to experience freedom just as much as they do.
carbon_footprint on July 6, 2008 at 6:06 PM
I say we get the Layzors charged and fire up Iran’s next missile test and show em what up!
- The Cat
P.S. Yeah, I can still dream.
MirCat on July 6, 2008 at 6:07 PM
That’s right. And, after that is done, the time may be a little more appropriate for a regime overthrow. The Iranian man on the street may initially rally to the government, but their economy will go completely south and then they get righteously pissed at the leaders.
a capella on July 6, 2008 at 6:08 PM
I’m in the same dream it seems. Nothing like a boost phase ‘malfunction’ to cheer a weary westerner.
Limerick on July 6, 2008 at 6:09 PM
Bingo, saus! Timmerman’s Shadow Warriors spells out the subterfuge and sabotage that you describe.
onlineanalyst on July 6, 2008 at 6:12 PM
Which means that we should use what strings we have to goad them into this on the day we want to act. If we are as good as we should be at tracking their subs (which should be very, very quiet) the Iranian navy will go missing in about twenty hours. Depending on how careful they are with their soldiers, their ground forces may or may not survive that long. Depending on just how ticked off we are, their electric grids, water supplies, and sewer plants may go next. (The Stone Age is closer than anyone realizes.) Problem is, they have lots of people whose job is to beat people with sticks for ‘morals offenses’ on the streets, but who may also know how to use rifles, grenades, and booby-traps.
njcommuter on July 6, 2008 at 6:12 PM
We’ve set an excellent example in Iraq. The Iranians know by now we aren’t there to take over anyone’s country. They aren’t dumb. That’s why what is happening in Iraq right now is so good. The Iranians know it can be done with some help. We’ve won back a lot of trust.
a capella on July 6, 2008 at 6:14 PM
online,
I still can’t believe no one took out Mugabe ten years ago. Now look what he has gone and done.
I think we know where the main leaders of Iran are most nights along with the thugs of Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Sadr. Taking them out is easier than dealing with the political aftermath. Our stated 20th century position is we are against assassination. That’s why all these cretins are able to go on shopping sprees in New York taking up entire floors of the Regis while pretending to be going to the UN.
Then, at the podium, they glibly tell us how they are going to kill us.
It’s my prediction that if this war on terror is real–real meaning that they truly, truly believe in the caliphate– we will be resorting to individual murder. Cutting off the head so to speak rather than bombing the civilian base into
arch enemies.
Reagan thought as much when he put one down Gaddafi’s chimney back in the 1986. Old Muammar certainly kept a low profile after that. Just as Reagan used Gaddafi’s connections to prior terror activities I would hope that Israel/US use Iran’s bomb quest in the same way. If it doesn’t work then keep working down the food chain.
We are in a war the last time I checked.
patrick neid on July 6, 2008 at 6:18 PM
Exactly, the idiot libs here have said all along it was for the oil. How is that oil helping us out now?
We had nothing but the noblest of intentions there and it is finally being seen as evidence to the world.
carbon_footprint on July 6, 2008 at 6:18 PM
Makes sense to claim that if the beans must get spilled for Obama’s intel. Drop the pintos. Save the kidneys.
maverick muse on July 6, 2008 at 6:19 PM
This is exactly the kind of thing that keeps me up at night.
It’s a classic example of “Damned if you do and damned if you don’t.”
Geronimo on July 6, 2008 at 6:23 PM
For those of you talking about a draft, consider the immortal words of Sgt. Hulka: “There ain’t no draft no more”.
Laserjock on July 6, 2008 at 6:32 PM
The Israelis don’t know where Irans nukes are? Don’t believe it.
docdave on July 6, 2008 at 6:36 PM
I’ve got no moral reservations about doing it. It is the logistical part that bothers me. Plus, if their economy doesn’t take some kind of a hit, the man on the street isn’t going to have a major reason to risk his life in an overthrow attempt. On the other hand, a poster above made reference to some anti-government rallies, so they may be closer than I think. It’s all a guessing game.
Poster saus gave us some very good info, btw.
a capella on July 6, 2008 at 6:38 PM
The Israelies don’t know where Iransnukes are? Don’t believe it. I wish America still had the gumption to kick the Iranians butts, but alas half of America believe’s that Iran deserves nukes,cause Israel has them. While Israel has never once said it wipe any other foe off the map without provacation.
AMartinez on July 6, 2008 at 6:43 PM
geee, ya think? lets see, are Iranian bloggers smarter a blogger? perhaps our intel guys are too
uh huh, special super Itanian concrete is invunerable
I think this guy has a clue.
The bottom line is that any highly reinforced target might withstand one strike from a MOP, but even a bunker roof made of 60,000 psi concrete can be chipped away at until it finally fails to protect what’s underneath.
windansea on July 6, 2008 at 6:46 PM
Allah, all evidence suggests Israel will NOT strike Iran.
1. Olmert and the rest are weak, desiring a “deal” at all costs.
2. The IAF is not very good, unable to attack at long distances and defeated by Hezbollah in the Lebanon War.
3. Staging “exercises” gives up surprise, unless one does what Alexander did in India (staging “exercises” every day for 14 dyas to weary his opponents).
4. Israel lacks the means absent ICBMs to meaningfully attack Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
The most decisive factor is #1. Olmert could not fight his way out of a paper bag, lacking decisiveness and the understanding of his enemies. He’s a Labor Lawyer and thinks like one. Always wanting a “deal.”
Iran’s nukes are a done deal. Its just a question of which cities die. It might be a European one. Given Iran’s role as “patron” of Sharia-law movements in Europe.
whiskey_199 on July 6, 2008 at 6:46 PM
I have been meaning to pick that book up, you are the second person to mention it to me in as many weeks! thanks for the tip.
saus on July 6, 2008 at 6:58 PM
Here is the link of the news, commentary, and video of the protest in Iran. I think that the unrest in the country and the daring of the protesters in this area is significant.
onlineanalyst on July 6, 2008 at 7:05 PM
Lets see,the last time Israel wacked the enemy’s air base’s
or should I say runways,they put on a ruse,of relaxation and
a leisure day at the beach!
Meanwhile back at the Israel’s airbases’s,they saddled up,
and caught the Arabs off guard and wacked done good the
runways!
So,when it comes to Intel,history suggests,Israel will know
exactly where the target(s) are!
canopfor on July 6, 2008 at 7:21 PM
Here is the link…
onlineanalyst on July 6,2009 at 7:05PM.
omlineanalyst:Very interesting,too bad these protests
weren’t happening in every major city!
Just a thought,is it possible,that this
protest was staged as an Iranian ruse,I
know that sounds crazy,again just an idea!
And,I wonder if the Iranian’s have already
begun,rounding up the “trouble makers” so
to speak!
And I also wonder,a large Iranian protest,
would the goons have the guts to pull off,
a Tianamen Square like(massacre)crack down!
Oh ya,thank-you for the link:).
canopfor on July 6, 2008 at 7:40 PM
Exactly. Kadima is a party that does not hold Israel’s existence as its highest priority - that spot is reserved for the existence of Kadima seats and power. If Olmert, or any of the rest of the retards in the government had had a brain, the Lebanon war would not have been such a total fiasco. They all knew that Iran was going to have to be confronted soon, but they wouldn’t even touch Syria - which sent a major message to Iran. Now, when time has almost run out (time that has been ticking away since 1979, for the sentient beings in the world) they throw up this scenario to help scare some sense into the rest of the world (as Bush has made it pretty clear that he has no problem leaving office with an intact Iran, even if it has nuke technology, and the Euros would love to sell nukes to Iran). This is all pathetic. Everyone always knew that the longer this situation was put off the more expensive it would be, in all ways. But still, people are too scared and want to put it off even more.
Perhaps the telling part of this whole situation is this: The only ones who are not scared seem to be the Iranians - government and people. Why could that be and what could that mean? Answer that and everything becomes quite clear.
progressoverpeace on July 6, 2008 at 7:45 PM
I don’t know. But it didn’t seem like the Iraqis were scared before the war. Their government acted similarly arrogant. So I can’t tell if it’s because they already have what they want, or because they are irrational. If I had to guess, I would suppose the latter.
JiangxiDad on July 6, 2008 at 7:52 PM
I didn’t sense too much fear from the Iraqi civilians before the war. They knew that the US wouldn’t go after them - and we didn’t. I don’t think there’s a single Iranian who believes that the US, or Israel, would attack any Iranian cities (though it would be a necessary tactic to cause enough civilian diversions to help us on the military end). They all saw how Israel put the Lebanon war on hold for a week just to let everyone and his brother leave the south in safety (talk about stupid war tactics!).
Let me put it this way, I believe that if Russia were the nation threatening action and drawing lines, the Iranians (government and people) would be acting quite a bit differently. This is just a hypothetical, obviously, but it feels true to me.
There is no Western deterrence left in the world, as is proven every single day by the puny nations and rag-tag groups that constantly wage war on us, and the populations that have no fear of rallying in the streets calling for the deaths of nations that could obliterate them with the push of a button. I mean, really. Sometimes I find it all quite stunning.
progressoverpeace on July 6, 2008 at 8:06 PM
“They” might not know where all the nuke facilites are, but they know where the Iranian capital is.
GarandFan on July 6, 2008 at 8:15 PM
Iran needs to be encouraged to leave uranium enrichment and bomb development behind.
Plan A is to document the ruler’s corruption, and pass it along to the Iranian people. Let them do the heavy lifting. It’s similar to what Khomeini did to the Shah. Seduce them with the empty calories of Western culture. And tell them about plan B.
Plan B is explicitly a war plan:
A country without electrical power is not a threat. So send a démarche with a date, not too far out. If our demands are not met, shut down the electrical grid. We have the weaponry available for cruise missiles. Take out all major generators. With appropriate and available sensors, map all the portable generators. Take them out.
Retaliation on the US or Israel would be unwise, We might get really upset with them. We could do more to increase their pain. Our air and naval assets could be staged for this.
Remind them that when the US was mad at the end of WWII, we dropped every atomic weapon we had, and it was only 3% of the damage we did to Japanese cities.
And one thing above all, pledge that the US will absolutely not rebuild their country. Iran is on it’s own.
NaCly dog on July 6, 2008 at 8:25 PM
Think W. just went to Saudi to beg for oil? Perhaps he went to prepare the ground work for a strike either on Iranian leaders, nuclear sites or both.
Syria squawking about peace, they don’t want what Tehran is going to get. It was pretty obvious in the Iraqi invasion that there was nothing Iraq could do to prevent it. Same goes for Iran they are surrounded, isolated.
Question is who do you want leading these United States during Iranian conflict in the war on terror McCain (fighter pilot, war hero) or Obambi (community organizer, communist and terrorist sympathizer)
Really, the bombing will go relatively quickly and any retaliation will be minimal the Iranians simply don’t have the resources to penetrate our thus Isreals defenses.
Ironic that the appeasers on the left are facilitating the necesary attack as Isreal has got to be asking itself what kind of support it would get from an Obamanation presidency and dem control of both houses of congress?
Can they afford to wait 4 or 8 more years for a more friendly regime or do they act before Nov.?
dhunter on July 6, 2008 at 8:52 PM
I think any attack timing sequence will probably be based on the lead swings in the Obama/McCain campaign.
If Obama gets a large lead it might even happen before the election. Should McCain look good I don’t there will one.
Iran is in a race with itself economically. They want Obama to win because they think, rightly or wrongly, that Obama can be had and all the banking blockages could be lifted. They know with McCain they are doomed from within and without.
patrick neid on July 6, 2008 at 9:16 PM
We’re not going to war with Iran. Hate to break it to everyone here, but there it is. The President, any president, cannot order such action on his own, and Congress will never authorise it.
flenser on July 6, 2008 at 9:36 PM
I’m as happy to bash Bush as the next disgruntled conservative, but I don’t see what people expect him to do with respect to Iran. Contrary to many here seem to imagine, the President is not a Caesar who can order the legions to war on his own whim.
flenser on July 6, 2008 at 9:45 PM
Yes, but I worry you are unaware as to what they happen to be. As Clinton demonstrated well (or rather poorly, depending on how you look at it), the cruise missile is at best an exceedingly poor instrument for assassination.
Blacklake on July 6, 2008 at 9:47 PM
Formal war, of course not. But I’d direct your attention to 1988’s Operation Praying Mantis.
Blacklake on July 6, 2008 at 9:51 PM
flenser seems to believe that Iran won’t lash out if Israel strikes. Anyone else? One missle flying toward neutral shipping, the Navy, or a U.S. Army FOB and the War Powers Act kicks in. Congress can stuff it for 90 days.
Limerick on July 6, 2008 at 10:15 PM
This is true, but Bush is the one who declared the “Axis of Evil” (which I happened to agree with) and then lost his nerve after Iraq.
Look, I understand the pressure and the politics, but security is still security. Iran with nukes is a totally unacceptable situation. Bush said this so many times that it has become … I guess … meaningless. We’ll just have to wait for it to happen and then see how bad things can truly get.
That’s okay, my first thought on the afternoon of 9/11 was that we have to get the Pakistanis’ nuclear arsenal and we haven’t even made any step in that direction. Maybe I’m just dead wrong in my assessments but I have been saying for years that if Bush left office with Iran intact that he would have been an abject failure, by my reckoning. I did not expect that it would actually come to be.
Bush has had many entrees to start laying down the law to Iran but he has avoided each and every one - clearly demonstrating that he is scared of Iran. Maybe he is scared of what Iran will do or what we would have to do to stop them, but in either case he is scared of them. I find this all very disturbing.
progressoverpeace on July 6, 2008 at 10:18 PM
to make flense feel better about it all there is a climb down article now in the JP
…then again tomorrow there will be a climb up article.
Keeping the boys in Tehran up at night and scratching their chins.
Limerick on July 6, 2008 at 10:47 PM
I see that Limerick’s reading comprehension has not improved even a little bit. I did not speculate on what Iran would do if Israel strikes. So “Lim” is engaging in his usual rank speculation as to what I believe.
flenser on July 6, 2008 at 10:58 PM
No comparision. Reacting to Iranian blocking of shipping in the Persian Gulf is not remotely similar to launching pre-emptive bombing attacks inside Iran.
flenser on July 6, 2008 at 11:01 PM
One missisle flying towards neutral shipping….
Limerick on July 6,2008 at 10:15PM.
Limerick: Anything bad happenes,like an Aircraft Carrier,
and sh!t will hit the fan,all hell will break
loose,and SNAFU,will have a slightly different
meaning,like:
Systems not normal all —- UP!:)
canopfor on July 6, 2008 at 11:08 PM
Or they can impeach the President for starting a war without their permission, which is what they should do in that situation. If we’re going to get into a big shooting match in the Middle-East, then the peoples representatives need to OK it.
The War Powers Act is only applicable if the US is facing such an immediate threat that the president does not have time to consult Congress. It is not an escape clause which allows any president to go to war any time he feels like it, and tell Congress to “stuff it”.
I guess I should not be too surprised by this un-democratic and un-republican sentiment. (Small d and r.) After all, the typical commenter here was voting for the liberals until 9-11-2001. You people alway believe that your own desires override mere law.
flenser on July 6, 2008 at 11:10 PM
canopfor on July 6, 2008 at 11:08 PM
Yeah. The War Powers Act allows the president to do just about whatever he wants for 48 hours.
In anyone thinks that the Congress would not issue a further authorization to use force if Iran attacked one of our fleet, air, or ground assets is living in la-la-land.
Limerick on July 6, 2008 at 11:12 PM
What an apt name. But credit for honesty, as many progressives for war here like to pretend to be stauch conservatives.
I don’t know what “law” you want Bush to lay down to Iran. It’s futile to make threats without the ability to back them up.
flenser on July 6, 2008 at 11:16 PM
Does this sound like a head-fake or what? Relax Iranians, as long as you’re seeing these kinds of stories coming out of Washington, nothing is–WHUMP
smellthecoffee on July 6, 2008 at 11:23 PM
Spoken like a good jail-house lawyer. It does nothing of the sort. The President cannot launch a nuclear strike on China, for example, then check in with Congress two days later.
You like to live in la-la land yourself, don’t you? The scenario being discussed is an Israeli or joint American-Israeli attack on Iran, not an Iranian attack on us.
An Israeli or joint American-Israeli attack on Iran will certainly result on Iranian attacks on US forces in the region, and may well result in the undoing of all the work we’ve done in Iraq and that countries joining Iran against us.
But don’t let those details distract you from your bellicose fantasy life.
flenser on July 6, 2008 at 11:23 PM
Calm down, my friend. The discussion is about an Israeli strike and an Iranian reaction. My point, since my poor reading comprehension seems to have rubbed off on you, is that if Iran lashes out at American or neutral assets then the War Powers Act does come into play.
Don’t agrue with me about it, argue with Congress. It was your representatives who passed it. It is pretty cut and dry. We get hit then the President can hit back. You don’t need to be a legal eagle to figure that one out.
Limerick on July 6, 2008 at 11:28 PM
The ‘progress’ stands for ‘progress’, not progressive. I am for the prioritization of Man’s technological progress being above that of the pursuance of peace. Whatever.
As to “the law”, I was referring to the clear indicator that Iran was, indeed, playing with fire. I saw nothing of the sort when the British were taken by the Iranians back a little bit. The reactions of the West in that situation were pathetic, and the ‘law’ was laid down … that everyone was scared of doing anything to Iran and Iran could keep doing whatever it wanted to. There have been many, many, many such situations (just think about Irani meddling in Iraq for years on end) and the message that got through to Iran is quite clear. There is a lot of room for the President to move without Congressional action and Bush has refused to take any step at all. That’s all I was saying. I think it’s pretty obvious, isn’t it?
progressoverpeace on July 6, 2008 at 11:38 PM
Well said. Points right at the paradox of who-is-GW.
Limerick on July 6, 2008 at 11:39 PM
Who’s to say that Israel will go after Iran’s nuclear sites directly? I’d consider destroying the nuclear sites of which I was aware, the governmental buildings, military headquarters, power plants, water purification plants, sewage treatment plants, bridges, and above all, the oil pipelines and the ports. I’d start a Dresden-esque firestorm in Tehran. Then I’d call the Procrastinator in Chief, President Nice, and tell him, “If you’re not satisfied, handle matters yourself next time, and be prompt about it.”
Kralizec on July 6, 2008 at 11:40 PM
Thanks, Limerick.
I admire Bush’s tenacity and persistance in pursuing his Iraq policy, though I disagreed, tactically. Bush did the right thing taking Iraq down and he has been a rock for his position. For a long time I believed that Bush would not leave office without having made sure that Iran was defanged. I thought that Bush, himself, considered such an eventuality to represent an utter failure of his Presidency. Times change … or maybe he still has something up his sleeve. I hope it’s more than this “military exercise Kabuki theater” meant to scare Iran. It only scared the West.
progressoverpeace on July 6, 2008 at 11:57 PM
It won’t solve anything unless they take out the mullahs at the same time as they take out the nuclear facilities.
Drew W. on July 6, 2008 at 11:58 PM
We aren’t far apart on it. I have come to the conclusion that he blinked once we got into Iraq and the crap hit the fan with the insurgency. He just didn’t seem to be able to forge a team that had focus. If it wasn’t for Cheney, I believe, he wouldn’t have been re-elected.
Limerick on July 7, 2008 at 12:03 AM
It’s not for America to go to war to salvage Britains honor.
It’s obvious, but wrong. Great powers like the US go to war for reasons of national interest. The cost/benefit ratio of a war with Iran is bad enough that it is held to be against our interests. It’s pure realpolitick.
flenser on July 7, 2008 at 12:10 AM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »