Israelis 'rehearse Iran attack'
Byrnzie
Posts: 21,037
Friday, 20 June 2008 10:36 UK
Israelis 'rehearse Iran attack'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7465170.stm
'Israel has carried out an exercise that appears to have been a rehearsal for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, US officials have told the New York Times.
More than 100 Israeli fighter jets took part in manoeuvres over the eastern Mediterranean and over Greece in the first week of June, US officials said.
Iran insists its programme is peaceful, but Israel sees Iran's development of the technology as a serious threat.
Tehran is defying a demand from the UN that it stop the enrichment of uranium.
The UN Security Council approved a third round of sanctions against Iran over the issue in March 2008.
Several US officials briefing the New York Times said the exercise was intended demonstrate the seriousness of Israel's concern over Iran's nuclear activities, and its willingness to act unilaterally.
"They wanted us to know, they wanted the Europeans to know, and they wanted the Iranians to know," a Pentagon official is quoted as saying by the newspaper.
"There's a lot of signalling going on at different levels."
The exercise involved Israeli helicopters that could be used to rescue downed pilots, the newspaper reported.
The helicopters and refuelling tankers flew more than 1,400km (870 miles), roughly the distance between Israel and Iran's main uranium enrichment plant at Natanz.
The New York Times reported that Israeli officials declined to discuss the details of the exercise.
A spokesman for the Israeli military said the air force "regularly trains for various missions in order to confront and meet the challenges posed by the threats facing Israel".
Warnings
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert warned on 4 June that drastic measures were needed to stop Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.
He said Iran must be shown there will be devastating consequences if it did develop such weapons.
Israeli deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz - a former defence minister - said earlier this month that military strikes to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons looked "unavoidable".
In 1981, Israeli jets bombed the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak, 30km (18 miles) outside Baghdad.
Israel said it believed the French-built plant was designed to make nuclear weapons that could be used against Israel.
Israelis 'rehearse Iran attack'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7465170.stm
'Israel has carried out an exercise that appears to have been a rehearsal for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, US officials have told the New York Times.
More than 100 Israeli fighter jets took part in manoeuvres over the eastern Mediterranean and over Greece in the first week of June, US officials said.
Iran insists its programme is peaceful, but Israel sees Iran's development of the technology as a serious threat.
Tehran is defying a demand from the UN that it stop the enrichment of uranium.
The UN Security Council approved a third round of sanctions against Iran over the issue in March 2008.
Several US officials briefing the New York Times said the exercise was intended demonstrate the seriousness of Israel's concern over Iran's nuclear activities, and its willingness to act unilaterally.
"They wanted us to know, they wanted the Europeans to know, and they wanted the Iranians to know," a Pentagon official is quoted as saying by the newspaper.
"There's a lot of signalling going on at different levels."
The exercise involved Israeli helicopters that could be used to rescue downed pilots, the newspaper reported.
The helicopters and refuelling tankers flew more than 1,400km (870 miles), roughly the distance between Israel and Iran's main uranium enrichment plant at Natanz.
The New York Times reported that Israeli officials declined to discuss the details of the exercise.
A spokesman for the Israeli military said the air force "regularly trains for various missions in order to confront and meet the challenges posed by the threats facing Israel".
Warnings
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert warned on 4 June that drastic measures were needed to stop Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.
He said Iran must be shown there will be devastating consequences if it did develop such weapons.
Israeli deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz - a former defence minister - said earlier this month that military strikes to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons looked "unavoidable".
In 1981, Israeli jets bombed the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak, 30km (18 miles) outside Baghdad.
Israel said it believed the French-built plant was designed to make nuclear weapons that could be used against Israel.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
Hard to say. Though probably before Bush leaves office.
Thats what I'm thinking, but hoping it never happens.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Obama's already pledged unwavering friendship to them. I don't see the US hopping out of bed with them anytime in the next few years. Not while Iran's still waving its willy around.
True but saying you will back them up and then actually doing so, especially if they launch and unprovoked attack of Iran, is a whole different ball game. Even the Bush administration has started to criticize Israel, specifically the new settlements they are building in east Jerusalem. I'm sure Obama will hestitate supporting Israel if they do launch unprovoked attacks on Iran. He knows that the people of this country will not support such actions.
I hope you're right.
Don't be so sure ... I think most people would have a huge problem with invading Iran, launching a full-on war (and justifiably so). A quick strike on Iran's nuclear facilities wouldn't be the same thing.
no? obama has already pledged to be one of the most stalwart allies of israel plus all that other shit he told aipac
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
all options are on the table and he has said how the us shouldn't force israel to make peace w/ anyone and all the problems are from israel's neighbors
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
I don't know ... I think it would depend on the nature of the attack. I think most people would prefer a diplomatic solution.
I thought Amadangigibad's government was pretty popular, in part because of his anti-West sentiment and sabre-rattling re. the US and Israel. There are many progressievs in Iran as well, particularly in Tehran ... People who are more secular-minded, mainly intelligensia/academics and artistic-types who oppose the government but cannot openly voice their opinions. Maybe these people would turn more conservative in the event of an attack ...
He was elected b/c the progressives were not allowed to run, they were taken off the ballot. (Guess disenfranchisement is conservative favorite). The majority of the country is progressive, there is just a tight leash around their necks. The goverment gives just enough slack to prevent a revolution (ie looking away and letting the black market thrive). Even with the slack the people are getting bolder w/ time and there will be a regime change. Any kind of attack from the west will undo all that. Creating a "its the world against us" mentality is part of the reason Ahmidinejad makes some his famous comments.
Oh my...that sounds familiar.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
You were talking to Seymour Hersh? Where?
Michael Neumann:
'...America would be far better off on the other side of the Israel/Palestine conflict. It would instantly gain the warm friendship of Arab oil producers and obtain far more valuable allies in the war on terror: not only the goverments of the entire Muslim world, but a good portion of the Muslim fundamentalist movement. The war on terror, which seems so unwinnable, might well be won at nominal cost, and quickly. Perhaps, the most likely scenario would simply involve an embargo on Israel. Sponsored by the U.S in cooperation with the United Nations. There is a chance that Israel would prove intransigent; it has great military resources and could probably buy the materials it needs through sales of military technology. If this happens, Israel might have to be made the object of the kind of coalition forged against Iraq in the first Gulf war. Of course, against Israel the coalition would be far broader and stronger, including all the countries of the former Soviet Union, Iran, Libya, Pakistan, and many others. And though Israel is quite strong enough to persist in it's policis without U.S support, it could not stand up to such a coalition. Israel would be forced to follow it's own best interests and make peace.
Perhaps most important, switching sides would revitalize America's foundering efforts at non-proliferation. There are two man reasons why other countries resist these efforts: fear of American attack, and the outrageous exemption of Israel from non-proliferation initiatives. It is simply absurd to suppose that any serious effort to stem the development of nuclear weapons can proceed in the absence of any attempt to disarm Israel, which is estimated to possess between 200 and 500 nuclear warheads. Having launched it's own satellites, it clearly has the capacity to hit targets anywhere in the world, and it possesses cruise missiles that have hit targets 950 miles away. Until it is forced either to disarm or to establish good relations with it's neighbours, the pace of proliferation will simply increase. On the other hand, U.S efforts to neutralize the Israeli nuclear threat would win support for non-proliferation efforts from Pakistan and Iran. In these circumstances, in a radically different political environment, the problem of North Korea would no longer seem intractable. Meanwhile, the U.S contents itself with hollow victories such as Libya's recent gesture, the nuclear disarmament of a country that never had nuclear weapons in the first place.
In short, one has only to conceive the end of the U.S-Israel alliance to be overwhelmed with the benefits of such a move - very likely, even to Israel itself. That once-beneficial alliance, a legacy of the Cold War, has turned poisonous to America's security and it's future.'
This is actually quite interesting, although there is no way Israel would require a military response in the form of some gigantic coalition ... Israel is a democracy, and militarism aside, is not run by someone like Saddam Hussein. Israel would bow to U.S. demands to create a Palestinian state, before force would become necessary. I'd like to hear more of his logic re. how exactly a good portion of the Islamic fundamentalist movement would somehow cozy up to the U.S. as a direct result of a move against Israel. Is he suggesting that most of the "Great Satan"-type bullshit these people spout is largely related to the issue of Israel? I HIGHLY doubt that to be the case. Quite frankly, Islamic fundamentalism is not an altruistic movement. They do not oppose Western interests simply because they pity Palestine. The US switching sides might bring many moderates in the Arab world on board, but the fundamentalists have other axes to grind besides Israel.
As the main or sole reason, though? And if this is the case, are they angry because of the Palestinian's plight, or because of bigotry/and-or getting their arses whupped a few times?
I see your point, and agree that the U.S.'s (unconditional) support of Israel poses a problem. I don't see it as the only problem, though.
Do you really think Osama's biggest beef has to do with Israel? I don't know ...