Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Israel Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Brezinski - shoot down Israeli planes if they attack Iran
reefdiver    9/21/2009 3:25:54 PM
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/09/brezinski_calls_for_obama_to_s.asp Text from the Daily Beast interview: DB: How aggressive can Obama be in insisting to the Israelis that a military strike might be in America’s worst interest? Brzezinski: We are not exactly impotent little babies. They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch? DB: What if they fly over anyway? Brzezinski: Well, we have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a denial where you aren’t just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a Liberty in reverse.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
HIPAR       9/23/2009 11:55:10 AM
Well he's correct!  The US want's to convey an image that Iraq is now a sovereign nation that controls it's own boarders.  Now we know that's no the case; the US controls the airspace over Iraq.  So how does it play out politically if the US grants Israel the use of Iraq's airspace to attack Iran?
 
As an aside, the Iranian nuke infrastructure is hardened and geographically dispersed. Israel cannot destroy it with conventional weapons.  So an air raid through Iraq is moot.
 
---  CHAS
 
Quote    Reply

Shirrush    Funny that!   9/23/2009 1:52:50 PM
Why haven't I heard anything from Mr. Brzjzjejzhinski about shooting down Turkish fighters or Iranian helos killing Kurdish civilians in Iraqi airspace?
Oh! I get it! It's not really about Iraq's sovereignty, now, is it?
 
Quote    Reply

FJV       9/23/2009 3:17:14 PM
In the case of Iran's nuclear program, the US should not rely on Israel in my opinion.
In my opinion the logical conclusion to this is that if the Iranian nuke program must be bombed, the US must do this.
 
Bombing the Iranian nuclear program according to Luttwak is very possible and I tend to agree with him.

 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Shirrush    FJV   9/23/2009 3:41:56 PM
The US won't do it. The choice is between conventional war now, with all it entails, and nuclear blackmail/ strikes in the near future. The BHO White House correctly assumes this will be the next administration's problem.
Israel can't do much on its own, except continuing the current, covert sabotage campaign.
The US could have bombed Auschwitz, and stopped the Holocaust cold. They didn't. Same old, same old...
 
Quote    Reply

FJV       9/23/2009 4:33:20 PM
The choice is between conventional war now, with all it entails, and nuclear blackmail/ strikes in the near future.
 
In my opinion there is a thrid option and that is an US bombing campaign of  Iran's nuke program.
 
In contemplating preventive action, the technical issue may be quickly disposed off. Some observers, noting that Iran's nuclear installations consist of hundreds of buildings at several different sites, including a number that are recessed in the ground with fortified roofs, have contended that even a prolonged air campaign might not succeed in destroying all of them. Others, drawing a simplistic analogy with Israel's aerial destruction of Iraq's Osiraq nuclear reactor in June 1981, speak as if it would be enough to drop sixteen unguided bombs on a single building to do the job. The fact is that the targets would not be buildings as such but rather processes, and, given the aiming information now available, they could indeed be interrupted in lasting ways by a single night of bombing. An air attack is not a demolition contract, and in this case it could succeed while inflicting relatively little physical damage and no offsite casualties, barring gross mechanical errors that occur only rarely in these days of routine precision.
 
The problem with this option is that the best timing for this is at the last moment.

No premature and therefore unnecessary attack is warranted while there is still time to wait in assured safety for a better solution. But also and equally, Iran under its present rulers cannot be allowed finally to acquire nuclear weapons—for these would not guarantee stability by mutual deterrence but would instead threaten us with uncontrollable perils.
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Shirrush       9/23/2009 5:16:49 PM
Yes, but even a limited, targeted strike means war as the mullahcracy cannot watch idly while its toys are being turned into rubble.
Moreover, any air campaign however surgical should include regime targets: 150,000+ IRGC thugs are a tall order in this respect! Either a new government is tasked to cleaning up the radioactive mess in the aftermath of the attack, or nothing much has been achieved but a mightily pissed off Iran which will be quite prone to lobbing ballistic missile on a "use'em or lose'em" basis.
This will turn very ugly, although a little bit less so than the nuclear exchange that is sure to happen 3-5 years from now if nothing is done.
My favorite scenario, however, would still be a revolution sweeping the islamofascist regime overnight: the Elburz skiing season starts in three months, so please...faster!
 
Quote    Reply

jastayme3       9/25/2009 11:36:23 AM
Well TECHNICALLY that is a neutral's duty. Which is why the Swiss shot at both German and Allied planes during the war. However it is hard to see a better way to ensure that Obama loses the next election. After all, in America, the Evil Zionist Lobby has far more popular support then the Stringently Righteous Antizionist Lobby. For some odd reason Americans think "make the desert bloom" is more aesthetically pleasing propaganda then "we will bury you."
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Ezekiel    Short Term   9/28/2009 4:30:13 PM
A strategic strike on Iranian nuclear industrial complex will set back Iranian nuke a decade, if the regime started to rebuild straight afterwards. This is short term but a necessary step to face down an implacable belligerant rogue regime. Prattle on about sanctions and a genie in the bottle revolution....Force will be necessary.
 
10 yrs is 10 yrs....and allows for further deliberation and engender change within regime...a nuclear Iran on the other hand would be CATASTROPHIC!
 
The Mullah's cannot have the bomb...all else is preferrable in regards to israel, and further along in the time line the West.
 
Iran will respond with missiles and Hezbollah...Israel must up the anti and destroy hezbollah (on the ground) as an effective war making instrument...If tel-aviv or Haifa is engaged Syria must be engaged as state terror supporters. This will also apply pressure on Iran to stop missile attacks b/c Syria will want Israel to stop the bombardment of Artillery from the Golan on Demascus.
 
Israeli airforce and navy will have a target list that if missile war begins will deliver an economic knockout that will set Iran back into the Ice-age...it will take 50 yrs to get the capital to begin building another nuke industry.
 
 
You wanted to go down the rabbits hole....lets see how deep it really goes.
 
 
the fact is that we must fight the fight that needs fighting and not let contingency and slippery slopes monopolize the fact that a regime such of Iran can never be armed with nuclear missiles....they the arch terrorist state, threatened to wipe Israel off the map and have desires for empire and hegemony.
 
Quote    Reply

Ezekiel       9/30/2009 5:48:36 AM
Weeeeeee!
 
this rabbit hole is deep
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics