Why is Israel so scared off attacking Iran without the U.S?

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2

00_Chem_AJB Omid Djalili 4/28/2009 8:51:52 PM

Omid Djalili is a very funny comedian, unfortunately he does not represent Iran in any official way nor does he dictate Iranian politics, that job is currently in the hands of a religious and militant bureaucracy. Should Djalili take over these duties then the world would be a much safer place, but until then we are stuck with a group of men who cannot agree on anything: some want to progress, others want to stay where they are, others want to turn the clock back and drag the rest of the world with them, some want to commit genocide and others are plain nuts. The thing is however, I think you will find that Djalili is probably more qualified to run Iran when compared to most of the current establishment.

Quote Reply

LB Premise Wrong 4/29/2009 12:57:21 AM

The premise of the question is wrong. It is in fact the US that is concerned about Israel attacking Iran and Bush in fact effectively denied Israel permission to attack Iran in 2008 by not allowing overflight of Iraq.

Iran is going to have enough material for an atomic weapon within a few years. Exactly how long is not public knowledge. Being able to delay this a X number of years might very well be in the interests of the US. The trouble is that X might not be achievable and 1/2 X might not be worth all the fallout.

If Israel believes Iran might attack them with nuclear weapons, as Iran has publicly stated, then the equation for Israel is different. Israel, and specifically the new PM, do not view Iran as 100% rational. If you believe there is some chance your self proclaimed enemy will attack you with nuclear weapons than your view of X and it's consequences is going to be different than US calculations.

In short the US has decided it can live with a nuclear armed Iran. It's fear is that Israel does not hold the same view and thus will attack Iran at some point whether the US gives permission or not.

Quote Reply

WarNerd 4/29/2009 5:39:41 AM

Israel's problem is very simple, they have no way of getting to Iran without passing through a US air defense zone. They would not have to be attacked by US forces, but they would be challenged in the clear if the US had not approved the mission in advance, alerting anyone who might be listening. Like Iranian air controllers.

Without surprise, an Israeli raid on Iran could become VERY costly.

Quote Reply

Darth Squirrel 5/21/2009 11:12:08 PM

It may seems unthinkable, but frankly I believe any Israeli attack will come from Saudi Arabia. They may even use the Saudi RAF to refuel them. The old Israel plan called for a northern attack from Turkey as well, but now that is clearly out of the question. Their alternate base in Georgia may be off the table as well. Azerbaijan is a possibilty, and Iran has expressed significant anxiety over Israel-Azerbaijan security cooperation. Azerbaijan also owes Israel some favors, if you know anything about the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict.

Of course, the most important thing for Israel is going to be positioning their assets without tipping off American, Russian, various EU, Turkish, or Chinese intelligence. Any of these nations are likely to alert Iran to an imminent attack. The thing we are certain of is that the United States wants to do NOTHING and is ready to accept a nuclear Iran. They are sure Iran will "moderate" as it ascends. The same morons also said that China would "democratize" as it ascended, but they don't talk about that anymore.

I want to believe that Israel, under Netanyahu, will ignore the odds and do what needs to be done. The real test is to defy the US despite the threats that were laid done by the Bush administration and recently expanded upon by Obama and Panetta. The calculus may have changed if Iran can field this new missile in significant numbers, and if Israel really is defenseless against it. If they are determined to attack Iran regardless of the American position, the blooming Iranian missile capability could actually accelerate Israeli strike plans. They've already eroded their chances by waiting so long. The good news is that Netanyahu's intellect is many multiples of Obama's. Netanyahu has been telling us for years what must be done with respect to Iran. Let us hope that he can now put words into resolution.

Quote Reply

Spiky 5/22/2009 11:20:00 AM

Something to consider?

Diplomacy and 12 LONG years of embargoes and sanctions did not work to change the behavior of Saddam Hussein and his government. That is the Middle East. Now, we are trying with diplomacy and sanctions, for several years, to change the behavior of Iran's leaders. Does any one see a familiar pattern? Iran is the country that fought Iraq for 8 years in a very brutal war. They are the ones who sent thousands of their young boys to battle and to their deaths without proper weapons and ammunition, but were told by the Khomeini they were invulnerable because Allah was on their side. Iran through Hezbollah was involved in the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon in 1983 and the U.S. Marine barracks the same year. To this day, still Iran provides funds, training, and weapons to insurgents in Iraq that have killed thousands of Iraqis and U.S. soldiers. Iran is feared by her neighbors as much as they did Saddam Hussein. Why? Because both Saddam and the Iranian leadership of mullahs are disturbingly similar when it comes to power and their desire to dominate the Middle East.

Well, basically, here are the three options:

(1) MORE diplomacy (This is what will most likely happen, since we have our hands full with Iraq and Afghanistan and the wars are terribly expensive. Obama did say "this would be the last planned war-funding supplemental request to finance the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan." The supplemental for 2010 to the military for Iraq and Afghanistan total $130 Billion. Hence, Obama's effort to bring the Afghanistan theater to a close as quickly as possible, and probably one of the reasons why Gen. McKiernan got axed since progress in Afghanistan was going to slow for the current administrations political timetables and deadlines. Also, the American public in general does not want to go to war with Iran. Today, another war or conflict would not be popular, especially with the liberal left which is where much of Obama's hardcore support comes from both politically and financially. Iran is savvy enough to understand these things. So, it continues to play the diplomacy card just like the North Koreans have, and in the process Iran continues to stall while they proceed with their nuclear research. In a nutshell, this is what Iran expects and what they are counting on to happen. But, one never knows, maybe they will drop the nuke program through this venue; just don't forget how long Saddam held out.

(2) Take military action. Preferably with the full support of the international community which is easier said than done (this takes time, precious time). Without the support of the international community, Obama would be doing something similar to what the last "Cowboy" did. Politically, I doubt he wants that association. The military options are too many for me to even t

Quote Reply

1 2