Iranian issue is heating up like it or not

Quote:

---

I have yet to see any evidence offered that Israel will not act historically and address this issue via an air campaign,

---

The evidence you are looking for is the fact that Isreal doesn't have the capacity for an air campaign , unless the US provides the air-refueling for them .
Likewise their submarine launched missile capacity is very limited .
Plus of course the presence of Irans proxy armies on Israels borders and in the occupied territories would weigh heavily on any descision .

Quote:

---

In what way would air-strikes by the USA close the straits of Hormuz? The USA would very likely not be targeting the shipping therein -- at least anything that was not flying an Iranian flag --

---

well its like this , the straits are narrow , the navigable area is even narrower , much of that is Iranian territorial waters , airstrikes effectively mean a state of war, the territorial waters would be a war zone , civilian ships and ship owners don't like entering war zones for some strange reason and their insurers like it even less .
Sticking an American flag on the ships won't be a safety measure this time it will just be an invitation for attack .
Iran already had a huge stock of mines and anti-shipping missiles , and they just bought a hell of a lot more of the latest versions .

Quote:

---

what would Iran's incentive be to shut off their primary export?

---

OK apart from the little thing like ...errr...it didn't stop them last time did it . The state of war effectively closes off their exports anyway , so what exports would they have to lose once it starts .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

The evidence you are looking for is the fact that Isreal doesn't have the capacity for an air campaign , unless the US provides the air-refueling for them.

---

Israel possesses the tech and resources to reach Iran if they wanted to with an airstrike package. The real thing in my mind is overflying airspace that their semi-hostile and hostile neighbors would not allow at all further exacerbating the problem.

Quote:

---

The real thing in my mind is overflying airspace that their semi-hostile and hostile neighbors would not allow at all further exacerbating the problem.

---

Which is why they don't have the capacity .:idea2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

The evidence you are looking for is the fact that Isreal doesn't have the capacity for an air campaign , unless the US provides the air-refueling for them .

---

Given the two carrier groups in hormuz and the direction of the current admin in washington it is likely that the U.S. would support it, thus there chances just improved.

Quote:

---

Likewise their submarine launched missile capacity is very limited .
Plus of course the presence of Irans proxy armies on Israels borders and in the occupied territories would weigh heavily on any descision .

---

As opposed to the Iranians, with the technology to equip a bomb proclaiming the destruction of Israel?

Im guessing that the lesser of two evils is to strike now rather then later, but Im not israeli, maybe they are willing to share the nuke capable platform in the middle east with Iran :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Which is why they don't have the capacity .:idea2:

---

Poor choice of words. Capacity and capability are one thing. Feasibility is another entirely.

Quote:

---

Given the two carrier groups in hormuz and the direction of the current admin in washington it is likely that the U.S. would support it, thus there chances just improved.

---

Great idea , a joint strike by the Israelis with the US doing the in flight refueling that they lack .
Say goodbye to all your bases and fascilities in the mid-east . The emirates have already said that any strike by the US would lead to them closing all ports and airspace to the US .
Who is not gonna do the same if it is a joint Israeli/US strike ?
In Iraq you are holding a tiger by the tail in a cage , trying to take a hold on Iran lets a whole lot of tigers into the cage , and someone just locked the door .:oops:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Great idea , a joint strike by the Israelis with the US doing the in flight refueling that they lack .
Say goodbye to all your bases and fascilities in the mid-east .

---

or we can say goodbye later when in 5 years or so Iran has enough to develop a bomb and Israel uses thier limited nuclear missle capability.

My guess is that emirates would rather have an air strike now, then an israel backed into a corner via a potenitaly nuclear armed Iran. But wait Im sorry Israel dosent have declared nukes, so they wont use them first :no:

The emirates loose either way, so do we, the question is how much do you loose? Thats unless someone backs down, who knows 2008 isnt far away the entire political will of the US for conflict might change.

Until then, buckle up.....

we need to put the smack down on those nuts in israel, make them hand over the land that doesnt belong to them, and then negotiate peace with them and the rest of their neighbors. israel is one rogue regime we havent brought to bear. the hypocrisy is sickening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

we need to put the smack down on those nuts in israel, make them hand over the land that doesnt belong to them, and then negotiate peace with them and the rest of their neighbors. israel is one rogue regime we havent brought to bear. the hypocrisy is sickening.

---

Yes this might be true, but the here and now of it is you have a semi moderate in olmert who's popularity is in the crapper.

You know who the next probable PM of israel is? Netanyahu and he is a real pip.... a small part of the equation but if he does get In I suspect the Iranian issue isnt going to be a bed of roses.

oh, and i forgot to add, we should take back all that proprietary nuclear technology we gave them. i dont know whos idea that was, but it probably ranks up there with vietnam as all time good ideas from americans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

oh, and i forgot to add, we should take back all that proprietary nuclear technology we gave them. i dont know whos idea that was, but it probably ranks up there with vietnam as all time good ideas from americans.

---

Now this is just to damn funny - according to most experts (FAS being one of the main sources) the technology came from France for the development of Israel nuclear weapons.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Now this is just to damn funny - according to most experts (FAS being one of the main sources) the technology came from France for the development of Israel nuclear weapons.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/

---

Welp, if that's true... Someone get our large French friend Louis in here and let's 'sit him down for a chat.' :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

Welp, if that's true... Someone get our large French friend Louis in here and let's 'sit him down for a chat.' :laugh4:

---

Well I have found no evidence that states FAS provides inaccurate information. They are normally very reliable on information concerning nuclear weapons since the group is against them - founded by scientists that wanted to educate and inform people about the danger of the weapons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Well I have found no evidence that states FAS provides inaccurate information. They are normally very reliable on information concerning nuclear weapons since the group is against them - founded by scientists that wanted to educate and inform people about the danger of the weapons.

---

I for one am truly ignorant of how Israel came into posession of nukuler technology. Was always told and 'read' that it was because of the US, not France. I don't mean for this to be taken the wrong way by our French friends, but it would 'seem' that France has multiple times in the past ignored embargos and sanctions to sell tech/equipment to UN blacklisted nations. The latest example I have is Iraq, IF one believes the 'evidence' given. Honestly I don't know what to believe anymore. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

I for one am truly ignorant of how Israel came into posession of nukuler technology. Was always told and 'read' that it was because of the US, not France. I don't mean for this to be taken the wrong way by our French friends, but it would 'seem' that France has multiple times in the past ignored embargos and sanctions to sell tech/equipment to UN blacklisted nations. The latest example I have is Iraq, IF one believes the 'evidence' given. Honestly I don't know what to believe anymore. :shrug:

---

True - that is why one must use multiple sources to determine what might be truth.

FAS has not steered me wrong on anything about nuclear weapons - other sources have confirmed much of what is in the FAS site about nuclear technology - so I deem them reliable for information. Now someone that has direct access to French, Israeli, or American documents might prove FAS wrong - but I am fairily sure no-one on this board has access to such information.

Guys, it's OK. If we survive December 2012, we all win! It's the primary objective. The secondary objective is to not engage in limited nuclear war in 2008. There's another secondary objective, but I'm not sure what it is.

The things that inch a world toward an end or confrontation of nations are always seen in a momentary example of something. As in, this is common, this is necessary, this is ______(place reason here). It seems reasonable, but there is a line where it becomes provocative. Bush just crossed that line.

The USA (Bushys) just went past being totally stupid, they were already listed as being stupid. Going past it is of no surprise to anyone that understood what the "Bush Initiative" meant = amagedon; or the rapture.

Confrontation seems to be their answer for diplomacy.

It seems, Bush's only response to anything is by using the military. Makes one wonder - who's doing the 1st lady (he certainly hasn't had time)? (j/k)

It is a give me, for every action there is an equal and positive reaction.

When reason is lost in the rush to use military response over reason, then the need for war is lost in the want of it. The want for war is not lost, because there is no reason.

Quote:

---

I for one am truly ignorant of how Israel came into posession of nukuler technology. Was always told and 'read' that it was because of the US, not France

---

Just like everyone keeps repeating we armed them and Saddam. We didnt arm them in the 1st war or the 2nd I believe. Even today they have a very good arms making capablity of their own producing some of the finest weapons available.

Quote:

---

In the 1950s and early 1960s, France and Israel had very close relations. France was Israel's principal arms supplier, and as instability spread in France's colonies in North Africa, Israel provided valuable intelligence obtained from its contacts with sephardic Jews in those countries. The two nations even collaborated (along with Britain) in planning and staging the joint Suez-Sinai operation against Egypt in October 1956. The Suez Crisis, as it became known, proved to be the genesis of Israel's nuclear weapons production program.

Six weeks before the operation Israel felt the time was right to approach France for assistance in building a nuclear reactor. Canada had set a precedent a year earlier when it had agreed to build the 40 MW CIRUS reactor in India. Shimon Peres, a key aide to Prime Minister (and Defense Minister) David Ben Gurion, and Bergmann met with members of the CEA (France's Atomic Energy Commission). An initial understanding to provide a research reactor appears to have been reached during September.

On the whole the Suez operation, launched on 29 October was a disaster. Although Israel's part of the operation was a stunning success, allowing it to occupy the entire Sinai peninsula by 4 November, the French and British invasion on 6 November was a failure. The attempt to advance along the Suez canal bogged down and then collapsed under fierce US and Soviet pressure. Both European nations pulled out, leaving Israel to face the pressure from the two superpowers alone. Soviet premier Bulganin issued an implicit threat of nuclear attack if Israel did not withdraw from the Sinai.

On 7 November 1956, a secret meeting was held between foreign minister Golda Meir, Peres, and French foreign and defense ministers Mssrs. Christian Pineau and Maurice Bourges-Manoury. The French officials were deeply chagrined by France's failure to support its ally in the operation, and the Israelis were very concerned about the Soviet threat. In this meeting the initial understanding about a research reactor may have been substantially modified, and Peres seems to have secured an agreement to assist Israel in developing a nuclear deterrent.

After some further months of negotiation, the initial agreement for assistance took the form of an 18 MW (thermal) research reactor of the EL-3 type, along with plutonium separation technology. At some point this was officially upgraded to 24 MW, but the actual specifications issued to engineers provided for core cooling ducts sufficient for up to three times this power level, along with a plutonium plant of similar capacity. How this upgrade came about remains unknown.

---

Heres your LINK

Gents, for what it's worth, there appears to be considerable disagreement within the administration over how to proceed with Iran.

I can confirm, through military and intelligence sources, part of Steve Clemons' account of Cheney's crazed bellicosity regarding Iran. In fact, having just received a second-source confirmation of the following story, I was intending to post it today:

Last December, as Rumsfeld was leaving, President Bush met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff in "The Tank," the secure room in the Pentagon where the Joint Chiefs discuss classified matters of national security. Bush asked the Chiefs about the wisdom of a troop "surge" in Iraq. They were unanimously opposed. Then Bush asked about the possibility of a successful attack on Iran's nuclear capability. He was told that the U.S. could launch a devastating air attack on Iran's government and military, wiping out the Iranian air force, the command and control structure and some of the more obvious nuclear facilities. But the Chiefs were--once again--unanimously opposed to taking that course of action.

Why? Because our intelligence inside Iran is very sketchy. There was no way to be sure that we could take out all of Iran's nuclear facilities. Furthermore, the Chiefs warned, the Iranian response in Iraq and, quite possibly, in terrorist attacks on the U.S. could be devastating. Bush apparently took this advice to heart and went to Plan B--a covert destabilization campaign reported earlier this week by ABC News. If Clemons is right, and I'm pretty sure he is, Cheney is still pushing Plan A.