Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Purveyor

(29,876 posts)
Fri Feb 3, 2012, 12:32 PM Feb 2012

Israel, U.S. Divided Over Timing of Potential Military Strike Against Iran

By Nicole Gaouette and Jonathan Ferziger - Fri Feb 03 16:16:54 GMT 2012

The U.S. and Israel are publicly disagreeing over timing for a potential attack on Iran to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons.

“There’s a growing concern -- more than a concern -- that the Israelis, in order to protect themselves, might launch a strike without approval, warning or even foreknowledge,” Aaron David Miller, a former Mideast peace negotiator in the Clinton administration, said today.

The U.S. and Israel have a “significant analytic difference” over estimates of how close Iran is to shielding its nuclear program from attack, Miller said today. The differing views were underscored by public comments yesterday by senior Israeli and U.S. defense officials.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Israel must consider “an operation” before Iran reaches an “immunity zone,” referring to Iran’s goal of protecting its uranium enrichment and other nuclear operations by moving them to deep underground facilities such as one at Fordo, near the holy city of Qom.

MORE...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-02/israel-defense-chief-barak-says-world-understands-need-to-act-against-iran.html

28 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Israel, U.S. Divided Over Timing of Potential Military Strike Against Iran (Original Post) Purveyor Feb 2012 OP
No need for division Boombaby Feb 2012 #1
We should be discouraging more WARS. Israel needs to shut up and sit down. chimpymustgo Feb 2012 #12
Why should Israel attack Iran, or for that matter why should ANY country attack another? /nt still_one Feb 2012 #14
Israel has three ways to attack over and through Iran, Turkey, Iraq or Saudi Arabia happyslug Feb 2012 #17
Bibi wants to attack in time for the price of oil to double Submariner Feb 2012 #2
I suspect this also. +1 Purveyor Feb 2012 #5
Scary thought! dreamnightwind Feb 2012 #10
If Israel is stupid enough to attack Iran unprovoked, I suspect they will find not only the still_one Feb 2012 #15
Intrade = 17.5% chance by 1 July - a 25% chance by 1 October and 39% chance by end of 2012 Douglas Carpenter Feb 2012 #3
That is still less than 50%, and I personally do not think it will happen. /nt still_one Feb 2012 #16
Betting on something like this is pretty morbid oberliner Feb 2012 #22
I've never placed a single bit on Intrade..I monitor how the markets view the probability that Douglas Carpenter Feb 2012 #23
The whole concept of Intrade with respect to war and killing is morbid oberliner Feb 2012 #24
like it or not - many international obervers believe that an attack on Iran is a real possibility Douglas Carpenter Feb 2012 #25
Apparently most people don't believe that oberliner Feb 2012 #26
given the devastating consequences - I certainly hope most people are right Douglas Carpenter Feb 2012 #27
Too bad "Intrade" wasn't around during the Cuban Missile Crisis oberliner Feb 2012 #28
divided over timing, two tentacles of the war machine may be, but united on the need to attack, stockholmer Feb 2012 #4
Divided Over Timing of Potential Military Strike mactime Feb 2012 #6
No, we are trying sanctions instead of bombs dreamnightwind Feb 2012 #7
6 dollars a gallon, with in two weeks after this stupidity takes place. sarcasmo Feb 2012 #8
It won't take two weeks FarCenter Feb 2012 #9
Divided over "timing?" Huh? nanabugg Feb 2012 #11
I'm divided too HeiressofBickworth Feb 2012 #13
This is insanity Gringostan Feb 2012 #18
I don't think so oberliner Feb 2012 #19
They threatened Iraq Gringostan Feb 2012 #20
Israel? oberliner Feb 2012 #21
 

Boombaby

(139 posts)
1. No need for division
Fri Feb 3, 2012, 12:50 PM
Feb 2012

If Israel wants to attack Iran, Israel should attack Iran. And we should have absolutely nothing to do with the operation. Simple.

 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
17. Israel has three ways to attack over and through Iran, Turkey, Iraq or Saudi Arabia
Sun Feb 5, 2012, 04:17 AM
Feb 2012

I do NOT see Turkey giving permission, even if they plan to denounce it afterward (This is what Kenya did in the Entebba Uganda Raid, Israeli C-130s landed and refueled in Kenya before heading for Uganda, the raid was done and the passenger rescued, then Kenya "denounced" the raid i.e. Kenya approved of the Raid, but for diplomatic reasons denounced it). As I said I do NOT see Turkey doing the same, if jets were detected the Turks would try to intercept them AND tell Iran the Jets were going to Iran.

The Israelis may have better luck with Saudi Arabia, the House of Saud may like such an attack, and thus agree to leave the IDF (Israeli Defense Force) to fly over Arabia and hit Iran, leaving the House of Saud the ability to denounce the IDF for the attack and violation of their airspace. The Downside is twofold, the US run the Saudi Arabia Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS, through now called airborne early warning and control, AEW&C) so the US will know of the attack at the same time as the House of Saud. Thus, while the House of Saud may approve of the attack, the US may not for the simple reason the US will get blamed for everyone knows who run those AWACS and it is the US.

The Second reason the House of Saud may not cooperate is simple, Iran has missiles that can hit the oil fields and export terminals for Saudi Arabian oil. The oil is concentrated just across from the Persian Gulf from Iran in an area of Arabia that is Shiite, like Iran, not Sunni. like the house of Saud. This is true of most of the Persian Gulf Nations, the majority of the people are Shiite, but the leadership, our allies, are all Sunni.

More on AWACS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_Early_Warning_and_Control

The final route, the most direct is over and through Iraq (Yes I known Jordan is also on the same route, but the US is tighter with Jordan then with Saudi Arabia and Iraq, thus not a real additional factor). Even today, after the US pull out of Iraq, the US still controls the air space over Iraq. How much this is tied in with the US operated AWACS from Saudi Arabia is unknown, but even if there is no connection (something I doubt) the US will get the blame for that is the perception in the Middle East (thus the extent of the interaction is unimportant).

Thus to fly over Iraq Israel must get US permission, if the US does not grant permission, the US can shoot down any plane Israeli sends over Iraq or Arabia. Even if the US did not the US would get blamed anyway and suffer the Consequences (including revolts in Iraq, Arabia and most of the Persian Gulf Nations, supported or lead by missile attacks on those same nations from Iran and an attack on Shipping at the Gulf of Hormuz etc).

Furthermore, that would shut down 20% of all oil exports. Israel gets its oil from that same source (i.e. first shipped to the US and then to Israel). The issue would become will the US continue to ship oil to Israel when China and India would be buying up all the oil they could beg, borrow or steal? Europe will be in the same price fight, while Canada is a "Captive" market (i.e. must ship to the US), the other two Western Hemisphere oil exporters (Mexico and Venezuela) are NOT.

Right now Mexico and Venezuela export their oil to the US in ocean going barges, but with the Straits of Hormuz blocked, the ocean going tankers used in the Persian Gulf would be Free" to switch to Mexico and Venezuela for shipments to Europe, Japan, India and China.

Thus the US would suffer a severe internal oil shortage, will the US government make that shortage worse by shipping domestic oil to Israel, or tell Israel they were on they own as far as oil is concern (i.e. the US would refuse to honor its commitment to supply oil to Israel)? I lean to the US telling Israel they were on they own.

Now this would cause a big political headache in the US no matter which party controls the White House (and more for the GOP, for GOP is more dependent on suburban and rural voters then are the Democrats and as such run a greater risk of turning off voters that are the most oil dependent people in the US, Suburban and Rural residents, whole giving US oil to Israel). The Democrats are NOT much better, but given the larger support for Democrats in Central Cities easier for Democrats to give up the oil).

Given the above I do NOT see an attack on Iran. The Costs to the US of such an attack is to high. I suspect Iran fells as I do, thus a lot of noise but no real action. At the same time Iran must keep its options open, thus the talk of how it would close down the Persian Gulf. Such a close down would force the US to attack Iran, so no plan to do so exist UNLESS the US or Israel attacks Iran first.

Now, Washington and Israel may do such an attack, dumber things have happen, but so far it has been mostly talk and showmanship (For example last weeks movement of a US carrier into the Persian Gulf, no need for the Carrier in the Persian Gulf to attack Iran, the Carrier can attack Iran from the Arabian Sea (the sea the Persian Gulf empties into). No attack on that Carrier by Iranian Speed Boats, which is all you need to do such an attack in the Persian Gulf). Thus all the ACTIONS of the US and Iran do NOT indicate any attack on one by the other (i.e. move the Carrier out of the Persian Gulf, but park it just outside the Gulf, perfect place to launch an attack on Iran while giving the Carrier room to maneuver if it has to to avoid Iranian speed boats, or even missiles hidden on commercial ships going in and out of the Gulf).

As far as an Iranian attack, if a Carrier was in the Gulf, run speed boats up to it to show that the Carrier can be attack and Order all Iranian Commercial Ships to report where the Carrier are and even aim the Commercial ships at the Carrier or its escorts, to force the Carrier and its escorts to get out of the way of the Commercial ship. I NOT heard of either thing occurring, thus Iran is avoiding confrontation. Thus support for my position that there is no plan by either side to attack, it is all talk.

Submariner

(12,485 posts)
2. Bibi wants to attack in time for the price of oil to double
Fri Feb 3, 2012, 12:50 PM
Feb 2012

this summer so that gasoline prices sky rocket in time to defeat President Obama. I expect Bibi will be back on the tube with Hannity again soon to pose more threats. Just what we need, another f*cking war.

dreamnightwind

(4,775 posts)
10. Scary thought!
Fri Feb 3, 2012, 05:41 PM
Feb 2012

It makes sense, too. Eeeessshhhh.

I hear a lot of Dems rooting for Gingrich to get the Republican nomination on the thoery that he'll be easier to beat. Probably true, but it's a risky strategy. There are a number of scenarios where the Republicans and their wealthy backers may be able to damage Obama sufficiently to get the Republican nominee elected. I really don't like the sound of President Newt. Anyway, a fuel price explosion would be one of those scenarios, and Bibi might be the guy to make it happen.

still_one

(91,965 posts)
15. If Israel is stupid enough to attack Iran unprovoked, I suspect they will find not only the
Sat Feb 4, 2012, 08:44 PM
Feb 2012

international community not ready to jump on the band wagon, but they will cause at least a two front war against them. Iran won't just lay back, and Lebanon will move also. In addition, since the wisdom of our foreign policy toppled sadam hussein, the Shia rule in Iraq will align themselves with Iran

This will be a mess far worse than the wmd lie we used to invade Iraq, and will cause a world wide depression

I also do not believe it will happen

It is neither in Israel's interests nor Iran's




 

oberliner

(58,724 posts)
22. Betting on something like this is pretty morbid
Sun Feb 5, 2012, 04:59 PM
Feb 2012

We are talking about people being killed here - and you are interested in placing bets?

Douglas Carpenter

(20,226 posts)
23. I've never placed a single bit on Intrade..I monitor how the markets view the probability that
Sun Feb 5, 2012, 05:57 PM
Feb 2012

a events might happen. I suspect you knew that and you are being intentionally nasty.

 

oberliner

(58,724 posts)
24. The whole concept of Intrade with respect to war and killing is morbid
Sun Feb 5, 2012, 06:00 PM
Feb 2012

Monitoring it in that way seems ghastly to me.

No nastiness intended - I'm just giving you my opinion on this.

Whether you placed a bet or no.

Douglas Carpenter

(20,226 posts)
25. like it or not - many international obervers believe that an attack on Iran is a real possibility
Sun Feb 5, 2012, 06:23 PM
Feb 2012

- most likely by the State of Israel - by the end of the year. If you check Asia Week - they have been publishing during the past few months several well researched articles about the possibility of an attack on Iran by the end of the year. Intrade offers a barometer of how the markets are interpreting these observations... Intrade is a tool whereby one can inform one’s self of how market forces view how possible this might be. It is indeed truly ghastly that an attack might happen - an attack with likely catastrophic consequences. The reality of what might actually happen is what is truly ghastly and morbid. I suppose betting on it would be pretty cynical too. I would never place such a bet.

Douglas Carpenter

(20,226 posts)
27. given the devastating consequences - I certainly hope most people are right
Sun Feb 5, 2012, 06:33 PM
Feb 2012

Many observers think that it could likely happen. An Iranian friend of mine who just left yesterday who has never previously predicted an attack - is now convinced it is going to happen. He is someone who follows every report very closely. We will hope that they are wrong as he certainly does. There are reasons to believe it might not happen. The Pentagon does not want it. The CIA does not want it. I doubt the Obama Administration wants it. Those who are hoping for a financial recovery of the global economy certainly do not want it. But there are other reasons to believe it is increasingly possible. If the Intrade numbesr start climbing above 50% - I would be even more concerned.

 

oberliner

(58,724 posts)
28. Too bad "Intrade" wasn't around during the Cuban Missile Crisis
Sun Feb 5, 2012, 06:48 PM
Feb 2012

Wonder where the "smart money" would have been.

 

stockholmer

(3,751 posts)
4. divided over timing, two tentacles of the war machine may be, but united on the need to attack,
Fri Feb 3, 2012, 01:12 PM
Feb 2012

they most assuredly are.


Generals gathered in their masses
Just like witches at black masses
Evil minds that plot destruction
Sorcerers of death's construction

In the fields the bodies burning
As the war machine keeps turning
Death and hatred to mankind
Poisoning their brainwashed minds
Oh lord yeah!

Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor

Time will tell on their power minds
Making war just for fun
Treating people just like pawns in chess
Wait 'til their judgement day comes
Yeah!


 

mactime

(202 posts)
6. Divided Over Timing of Potential Military Strike
Fri Feb 3, 2012, 03:50 PM
Feb 2012

So the decision has already been made that there will be a military strike, it is just the timing that still needs to be worked out. Am I reading that correctly?

dreamnightwind

(4,775 posts)
7. No, we are trying sanctions instead of bombs
Fri Feb 3, 2012, 05:11 PM
Feb 2012

from the article in the OP:
-------------------------------------------
Panetta stressed today that the U.S. and Israel are in agreement on the need to do what is necessary to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

“We’ve made very clear that they cannot, they cannot develop a nuclear weapon,” Panetta told troops at Ramstein Air Base in Germany.
Strike ‘Premature’

The chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, has said it is “premature” to resort to military force because sanctions are starting to have an impact on Iran. In a Jan. 26 interview with National Journal, Dempsey said he delivered a similar message of caution to Israel’s top leadership during a visit to the Jewish state in early January.

U.S. intelligence agencies think Iran is developing capabilities to produce nuclear weapons “should it choose to do so,” James Clapper, the U.S. director of national intelligence, told the Senate Intelligence Committee on Jan. 31.

“We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons,” he said.
-------------------------------------------
I don't even see how we can do sanctions given that statement by Clapper. Sanctions negatively impact civilians, who should not be punished for some act their government may or may not be approaching.

But I don't know this issue in depth, I'd need to really understand the Iranian nuclear program. I can see a need for sanctions if the signs truly point to a weapons program, though like I said, Clapper's statement doesn't seem to support that.

edited to add:
-------------------------------------------
from http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-57370973-503543/iran-helping-al-qaeda-war-hysteria-builds/
"The report is particularly disconcerting as it follows closely on the heels of America's intelligence chief James Clapper warning U.S. lawmakers that Iran is, "more willing to conduct an attack in the United States" as sanctions hit its economy and talk of Israel attacking its military and nuclear installations gains volume.
-------------------------------------------
So there's Clapper again, now saying that the sanctions themselves are increasing Iran's militancy towards the U.S., and of course the war hawks use this as a further reason to launch a pre-emptive strike, circular escalation, rather than de-escalate the sanctions that are stirring things up.

I dunno, but I don't like it at all. Israel is armed to the teeth conventionally and with nukes, the real way to deal with all of this is with less military, not more, and a Palestinian state wouldn't hurt either.

 

FarCenter

(19,429 posts)
9. It won't take two weeks
Fri Feb 3, 2012, 05:16 PM
Feb 2012

The next morning, the futures markets will explode, and by 10 am the gas stations will have changed their prices.

Nobody is going to sell their inventory for less than they think they can get in two weeks.

 

nanabugg

(2,198 posts)
11. Divided over "timing?" Huh?
Fri Feb 3, 2012, 07:51 PM
Feb 2012

We should be divided over more than just timing. I guess the Likud government is trying to defeat Pres. Obama any way they can.

Gringostan

(127 posts)
18. This is insanity
Sun Feb 5, 2012, 03:38 PM
Feb 2012

This is insanity but I believe the decision has already been made; hence the announcement to end of the Afghan war.

Gringostan

(127 posts)
20. They threatened Iraq
Sun Feb 5, 2012, 03:44 PM
Feb 2012

They threatened Iraq; even moved troops into the theater, all the while professing negotiations.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Israel, U.S. Divided Over...