Israel warned not to attack Iran until Obama Takes Office

WakeUp

Tim McGirk
Time Magazine
November 25, 2008

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1861542,00.html?imw=Y

U.S. officials have asked Israel to refrain from launching any major military action in the region during the waning days of the Bush presidency, Israeli sources have told TIME. Previously, some Israeli military officials had hinted to the media that if Israel were to carry out its threats to strike at Iranian nuclear installations, it might do so before Barack Obama enters the White House in January. But now a Defense Ministry official says, “We have been warned off.”
The call for restraint was relayed to Israeli officials by senior U.S. counterparts, TIME’s sources say, and it is likely to be reinforced during Monday’s valedictory meeting in Washington between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and President George W. Bush. (See pictures of President Bush in the Middle East.)
Washington’s concerns are not limited to the possibility of Israel attacking Iran, the sources say; U.S. officials have also cautioned Israelis against launching a ground assault inside the besieged Palestinian territory of Gaza in a bid to stop militants there from firing rockets into southern Israel. Bush Administration officials warn that such an attack could cost many lives and jeopardize the painstaking, thus far futile efforts of U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to broker a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

thecommander

What's the conspiracy? Or has my mind just been opened?

WakeUp

thecommander wrote: »

What's the conspiracy? Or has my mind just been opened?

roll your mind back to 2003 UN security council lies about Iraq. Its happening again this time its Iran in the cross hairs. If Iran is attacked the world will explode,literally.

Heres where the US come in and all that brings. In any bombing run the Irsaeli airforce will use their F15's and F-16's and even with added fuel tanks they still have a limited range (reported 820 km non-refueling radius of operation). They require fueling mid air. Up until recently Israel didnt even have that capability but they have now thanks to US assistance.
Taking that into consideration the most direct and viable route to attacking Iran from Israel would be through Jordanian or Iraqi airspace. The Jordanians wont allow it but the US will as they control Iraqi air space. Any attack on Iran will have to be given the green light by the US which they will give and Iran knows it. This is really bad news for humanity,again.

meglome

WakeUp wrote: »

roll your mind back to 2003 UN security council lies about Iraq. Its happening again this time its Iran in the cross hairs. If Iran is attacked the world will explode,literally.

Heres where the US come in and all that brings. In any bombing run the Irsaeli airforce will use their F15's and F-16's and even with added fuel tanks they still have a limited range (reported 820 km non-refueling radius of operation). They require fueling mid air. Up until recently Israel didnt even have that capability but they have now thanks to US assistance.
Taking that into consideration the most direct and viable route to attacking Iran from Israel would be through Jordanian or Iraqi airspace. The Jordanians wont allow it but the US will as they control Iraqi air space. Any attack on Iran will have to be given the green light by the US which they will give and Iran knows it. This is really bad news for humanity,again.

Now I'm not suggesting attacking Iran is a good idea but I for one do not want them to have nuclear weapons, I'd rather no one had them but a fundamentalist regime would be way down my list.

toiletduck

Since the invasion of Iraq, an attack on Iran has been predicted every few months by the usual people *yawn*

It's a bit hard to blow up the world when Iran doesn't actually have the bomb.
And when the US army is stretched pretty thin.
And when public support for such a war is as low as it could get.

But don't worry it's all part of the plan.....

Mahatma coat

meglome wrote: »

Now I'm not suggesting attacking Iran is a good idea but I for one do not want them to have nuclear weapons, I'd rather no one had them but a fundamentalist regime would be way down my list.

just to Clarify is it just the Fundamentalist Islamic states that you worry about, what about that big Fundamentalist Christian state over there with loads of nukes.

I know a few lads from Iran, Fundamentalist is not how I would describe them or their culture

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

just to Clarify is it just the Fundamentalist Islamic states that you worry about, what about that big Fundamentalist Christian state over there with loads of nukes.

Yea just think of all them times the US government rigorously enforce Old Testament law.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I know a few lads from Iran, Fundamentalist is not how I would describe them or their culture

So never met an American then?

Diogenes

WakeUp wrote: »

roll your mind back to 2003 UN security council lies about Iraq. Its happening again this time its Iran in the cross hairs. If Iran is attacked the world will explode,literally.

Heres where the US come in and all that brings. In any bombing run the Irsaeli airforce will use their F15's and F-16's and even with added fuel tanks they still have a limited range (reported 820 km non-refueling radius of operation). They require fueling mid air. Up until recently Israel didnt even have that capability but they have now thanks to US assistance.
Taking that into consideration the most direct and viable route to attacking Iran from Israel would be through Jordanian or Iraqi airspace. The Jordanians wont allow it but the US will as they control Iraqi air space. Any attack on Iran will have to be given the green light by the US which they will give and Iran knows it. This is really bad news for humanity,again.

So what you are saying that the Israeli wouldn't attack Iran under Hawk Bush, but would attack Iran under the presidency of a man who's openly talked of opening a dialogue with Iran. Oh yea this makes sense.

WakeUp

Diogenes wrote: »

So what you are saying that the Israeli wouldn't attack Iran under Hawk Bush, but would attack Iran under the presidency of a man who's openly talked of opening a dialogue with Iran. Oh yea this makes sense.

no thats not what I mean at all, the administration Obama is putting together is just as "Hawkish" if not more so than the current one. Its a case of timing. Israel wants to attack but they have to wait for the US to give the green light which they will sooner or later. The warning the US has issused to Israel shows that Israel is itching to strike or why else warn them?..

WakeUp

WakeUp wrote: »

no thats not what I mean at all, the administration Obama is putting together is just as "Hawkish" if not more so than the current one. Its a case of timing. Israel wants to attack but they have to wait for the US to give the green light which they will sooner or later. The warning the US has issused to Israel shows that Israel is itching to strike or why else warn them?..

So why warn them not to attack when they can't until America gives them the green light?

brianthebard

WakeUp wrote: »

roll your mind back to 2003 UN security council lies about Iraq. Its happening again this time its Iran in the cross hairs. If Iran is attacked the world will explode,literally.

Almost afraid to ask, but how do you figure?

King Mob wrote: »

Yea just think of all them times the US government rigorously enforce Old Testament law.

The creation of a Zionist state?

WakeUp

King Mob wrote: »

So why warn them not to attack when they can't until America gives them the green light?

I think your missing the point thats exactly why they have warned them. The US are concerned Israel is going to go it alone that much is blatantly obvious and in turn have warned them not to but its only a matter of time.

WakeUp

WakeUp wrote: »

I think your missing the point thats exactly why they have warned them. The US are concerned Israel is going to go it alone that much is blatantly obvious and in turn have warned them not to but its only a matter of time.

Or maybe they can convince Israel not to attack in lue of renewed diplomatic relations with Iran which Obama promised?

WakeUp

brianthebard wrote: »

Almost afraid to ask, but how do you figure?


Countless UN Security council resolutions have been passed against the country.
Branded a sponsor of state terrorism with no evidence.
Iranian armed forces branded terrorists ( first time the US has ever done this

it all has a familar sound to it really.

WakeUp

King Mob wrote: »

Or maybe they can convince Israel not to attack in lue of renewed diplomatic relations with Iran which Obama promised?

maybe yeah you cant rule anything out hopefully they wont attack but the noises being made both in Israel and the US would tend to suggest otherwise imo.

WakeUp

WakeUp wrote: »

maybe yeah you cant rule anything out hopefully they wont attack but the noises being made both in Israel and the US would tend to suggest otherwise imo.

What?
You mean the president elect of the US saying that he'll open dialogue with Iran?

Mahatma coat

Really is about time Iran Developed its own Nuke

That will bring stability to the region.

tis a bit onesided at the moment, and I seriously doubt that the Israelis are stupid enough to atack Iran with or without US assistance it would be the end of them.

WakeUp

King Mob wrote: »

What?
You mean the president elect of the US saying that he'll open dialogue with Iran?

yes, like I said anything can happen I dont think it will happen but you can never say never. Israel views Iran as an “existential threat” to the Jewish state which are heavy words indeed so I dont think anything can be ruled out.

WakeUp

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Really is about time Iran Developed its own Nuke

That will bring stability to the region.

tis a bit onesided at the moment, and I seriously doubt that the Israelis are stupid enough to atack Iran with or without US assistance it would be the end of them.

the US want the job done just as much as Israel imo your right they are not silly both have differing views as to when Iran crosses the nuclear "red line". US wants it done properly and doesnt truly believe Israel is capable of doing that. Israel wants to do it right now regardless of the outcome.

WakeUp

WakeUp wrote: »

yes, like I said anything can happen I dont think it will happen but you can never say never. Israel views Iran as an “existential threat” to the Jewish state which are heavy words indeed so I dont think anything can be ruled out.

That and the president of Iran called for the dissolution of Israel, and said it should be wiped of the face of the Earth.
I can see why they might be a tad nervous about Iran getting the bomb.

brianthebard

WakeUp wrote: »

brianthebard wrote: »

Almost afraid to ask, but how do you figure?


Countless UN Security council resolutions have been passed against the country.
Branded a sponsor of state terrorism with no evidence.
Iranian armed forces branded terrorists ( first time the US has ever done this

it all has a familar sound to it really.

I meant why would the world be literally blown up, Iran doesn't have nukes.

Mahatma coat

King Mob wrote: »

That and the president of Iran called for the dissolution of Israel, and said it should be wiped of the face of the Earth.
I can see why they might be a tad nervous about Iran getting the bomb.

Ahmadinajan is often misquoted or taken out of context bout that.

course what would you expect from a Zionist controlled media.

what he said was that we needed to start again on a level playing field, equal rights/representation for the Palestinians as the Israelis.

me I'm a fan of the old Push them into the sea quote from Quadhafi

meglome

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Ahmadinajan is often misquoted or taken out of context bout that.

Don't speak any form of Farsi so I wouldn't know.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

course what would you expect from a Zionist controlled media.

Like that evil Jew Rupert Murdock... oh wait he's a Christian. Who exactly are all these 'Zionists'?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

what he said was that we needed to start again on a level playing field, equal rights/representation for the Palestinians as the Israelis.

Fair enough but he should probably stop also calling for Israel to be destroyed at the same time.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

me I'm a fan of the old Push them into the sea quote from Quadhafi

I'm not a fan of a lot of the things Israel does but I also don't forget that the Arabs would have happily pushed them into the sea from the beginning in 1948. So the two sides have done many terrible things to each other. Israel have consistently got the upper hand but Iran having nuclear weapons won't make it all better that's for sure. I do have sympathy for the Jews as one of the most put upon races in history, how many times in history have they been blamed or scapegoated for something which history has shown they had no hand in whatsoever.

Mahatma coat

So the Iranians should stop callin for the Destruction of Israel

But its OK for the Israelis to call for the wholesale Destruction of Iran

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

So the Iranians should stop callin for the Destruction of Israel

But its OK for the Israelis to call for the wholesale Destruction of Iran

No, the Israelis being worried about Iran having nuclear capabilities is justified.

Mahatma coat

So the Iranian are Justified in their fears of Israeli Nuclear capabilities.

do they have the right to balance the scales?

toiletduck

First off they'd be breaking the NPT.

Amazing that someone actually thinks the spread of nuclear weapons is a good thing.

Mahatma coat

The NPT is a load of ****, tis OK for the Big Boys to have nukes and to threaten their use, but tis not OK to balance the scales?

What about India and Pakistan, Lots of sanctions imposed on them for breaking the NPT werent there.

Diogenes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

The NPT is a load of ****, tis OK for the Big Boys to have nukes and to threaten their use,

Who among the "big boys" have threatened to use nukes recently?

but tis not OK to balance the scales?

The USA has a nuclear arsenal that could kill everyone on the planet three times over.

You really think giving Iran a couple of nukes and a few mid range ICBMs is going to "balance the scales"?

Ahmadinajan is often misquoted or taken out of context bout that.

No no he's not. And the inclusion of holocaust deniers at a recent Iranian conference proves it. But hey they'd be your kind of guys.

Indian and Pakistan nuclear tests destabilized a region and the only reason sanctions were dropped against pakistan was sept 11th (another knock to the whole USA used the ISI to stage 911)

What about India and Pakistan, Lots of sanctions imposed on them for breaking the NPT werent there.

You mean sanctions like these?. I mean Mahatma was that bad sarcasm on your part or just basic ignorance?

Wakeup wrote:

no thats not what I mean at all, the administration Obama is putting together is just as "Hawkish" if not more so than the current one.

up what, you think theres a Rumsfeld or Rove or Cheney in this administration? Care to back that up with anything resembling a fact?

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

What about India and Pakistan, Lots of sanctions imposed on them for breaking the NPT werent there.

Yea there were.

Mahatma coat

France, the French came out and threatened to use their nukes recently.

Yes I do think that 'Giving' the Iranians a few ICBM's would balance the scales or at least counter the massive imbalance that exists at the moment.

Oh noes he talked to people who dont toe the line about the Holocaust and believe without question the Bull**** being foisted on them by the Jews.

Damm, he must be evil so:rolleyes:

I dont remember the Sanctions against India & Pakistan Crippling the countries quite to the same level as say Sanctions against Iraq/Serbia

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

France, the French came out and threatened to use their nukes recently.

Backing this up any time soon?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Yes I do think that 'Giving' the Iranians a few ICBM's would balance the scales or at least counter the massive imbalance that exists at the moment.

No it won't. It'll only serve to destablise the region further.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Oh noes he talked to people who dont toe the line about the Holocaust and believe without question the Bull**** being foisted on them by the Jews.

Damm, he must be evil so:rolleyes:

Cause that's how history works!

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I dont remember the Sanctions against India & Pakistan Crippling the countries quite to the same level as say Sanctions against Iraq/Serbia

So there where sanctions. Why did you say there weren't? And so what if the sanctions weren't as bad? Iraq were massacring ethinic groups and Serbia was in a war.

Diogenes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

France, the French came out and threatened to use their nukes recently.

The previous french president didn't rule out using nukes as retaliation to a terrorist attack. Thats not the same a threat. IE do what we want or get nuked.

Yes I do think that 'Giving' the Iranians a few ICBM's would balance the scales or at least counter the massive imbalance that exists at the moment.

At best that would lead to the Iranians either nuking Tel Aiv, and Iran getting wiped out. Or Iran launching a missile in aggression, and getting wiped off the map, after killing a few million innocent people.

Oh well those are two winning solutions.

Oh noes he talked to people who dont toe the line about the Holocaust and believe without question the Bull**** being foisted on them by the Jews.

No please Mahatma, keep it, up I'm adding this to my guessing game of "who said this a boards mod, or a stormfront mod" that I'm going to post onto AH sometime soon.

Damm, he must be evil so:rolleyes:

he's a reprehensible character.

I dont remember the Sanctions against India & Pakistan Crippling the countries quite to the same level as say Sanctions against Iraq/Serbia

Well they didn't last as long, and y'know Islamic countries didn't join into the sanctions on Pakistan, and India is one of the most populous countries on earth, so hey, why let the fact that situations are completely different, mean you shouldn't compare the sanctions between these four countries

toiletduck

Mahatma coat wrote: »

The NPT is a load of ****, tis OK for the Big Boys to have nukes and to threaten their use, but tis not OK to balance the scales?

So nukes for all then? Wow, well done. I really thought that most reasonable people were against nuclear proliferation.

What about India and Pakistan, Lots of sanctions imposed on them for breaking the NPT werent there.

Yes.

Yes I do think that 'Giving' the Iranians a few ICBM's would balance the scales or at least counter the massive imbalance that exists at the moment.

Capable of striking anywhere on the planet... You want to give this ability (which I may add the Isrealis don't have) to that horrible regime in Tehran?

Incredible. Is their any countries that you don't want the nukes to have? Did you support Isreal when they acquired the bomb, you know to "balance out the scales" in regard to the disproportionate amount of troops/weaponry their enemies had? Same for South Africa?

Mahatma coat

exactly why is Ahmadinijad a 'Reprehensible character' in charge of 'horrible regeime'

what about Ehud Olmert, I suppose he's a shining light of hope leading an enlightened nation:rolleyes:

toiletduck

Nice dodging. Any chance of answering the questions put forward?

As for Iran being a horrible regime, imo it most certainly is. I could give links to all the human rights abuses, support of terrorism, stonings etc etc etc etc but I suspect your line of argument isn't focused on Iran.

Mahatma coat

Yeah, its either Nukes for all or total disarmament, and seeing as how total disarmament is out of the question then its Nukes for all.

this comes back to the question n the other thread, what gives us the right to decide who should and shouldnt have Nukes? what gives us the right to dictate how another nation governs its affairs? what makes us so special?

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Yeah, its either Nukes for all or total disarmament, and seeing as how total disarmament is out of the question then its Nukes for all.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes!
Also there are many situations around the world where introducing nuclear weapons would be downright retarded.
Course you have to factor in the cost of maintaining the bombs and their delivery systems, there ain't many countries that can afford that.
And I'm not even going to mention what would happen in a terrorist group got their hands on one.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

this comes back to the question n the other thread, what gives us the right to decide who should and shouldnt have Nukes? what gives us the right to dictate how another nation governs its affairs? what makes us so special?

We didn't. Ireland has no say on who has and who should nukes.

Second US, France, Russia, China, and England have seats on the UN security council. So I'd say they'd have a bit of sway.

Oh yea and there was this little document about nuclear arms....

meglome

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Yeah, its either Nukes for all or total disarmament, and seeing as how total disarmament is out of the question then its Nukes for all.

Sorry man that really is mental. It's bad enough the US could destroy us all many times over without adding more weapons.

Mahatma coat

why is it Mental, if Iraq had managed to get a nuclear program up and running the US would have thought twice about invading them, similarly Israel is posturing now against Iran because once they come out and declare that the HAVE the bomb then there can be no more hawkish posturing. the ones that have the Nukes at the moment are the ones that are destabilsing the region with their warmongering and blatent opression of the palestinians, yet they're not sanctioned, why?

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

why is it Mental, if Iraq had managed to get a nuclear program up and running the US would have thought twice about invading them, similarly Israel is posturing now against Iran because once they come out and declare that the HAVE the bomb then there can be no more hawkish posturing. the ones that have the Nukes at the moment are the ones that are destabilsing the region with their warmongering and blatent opression of the palestinians, yet they're not sanctioned, why?

Because the world is a ****ed up complicated place, that won't be fixed by giving more people nukes.
There is no way that Iran getting the bomb will be a good thing.

Manic Moran

They require fueling mid air. Up until recently Israel didnt even have that capability but they have now thanks to US assistance.

You're talking out your hat, there. The Israeli raids on Entebbe (4,000km one way) and Tunis (2,100km one-way), both of which were over twenty years ago, should be evidence enough of the theoretical Israeli capability over time.

NTM

Mahatma coat

Look The russians were sellin Nukes (not NuclearSecrets, actual Nuclear Warheads) on the black market ten years ago
http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/090597/LA0759.htm

you dont think some 'terrorists' went out and bought some,

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Look The russians were sellin Nukes (not NuclearSecrets, actual Nuclear Warheads) on the black market ten years ago
http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/090597/LA0759.htm

you dont think some 'terrorists' went out and bought some,

They might have, if these things actually are missing. However it seems unlikely that a terrorist group would have held on to them for 10 years and not do anything.

But what has this to do with Iran having nukes?
My skeptisence(tm) detects you are trying to throw in a red herring again.

Manic Moran

But what has this to do with Iran having nukes?

Some estimates from a few years ago believed that Iran had acquired a couple of nukes which 'dropped off' the books after the Soviet breakup.

NTM

Mahatma coat

what I'm saying is that is plausible that Iran may already have the capacity to launch a Nuclear ICBM, dosent mean that they are any more likely to launch a first strike than any other Government.

on a Related note I have my suspicions that the North Korean 'Test' from a while back may have been the detonation of one of these black market Nukes, under the pretense that they had finaly managed to develop their own weapons program

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

what I'm saying is that is plausible that Iran may already have the capacity to launch a Nuclear ICBM, dosent mean that they are any more likely to launch a first strike than any other Government.

No it's not plausible they can launch, have or can build nuclear ICBMs.
They're not anymore likely to first strike true, however there is no reason to allow them to develop nuclear weapons.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

on a Related note I have my suspicions that the North Korean 'Test' from a while back may have been the detonation of one of these black market Nukes, under the pretense that they had finaly managed to develop their own weapons program

So they faked all that nuclear power stuff when they nukes all along? That's not very likely.
Also the suitcase nukes, if they exist, would be nowhere near the power of proper nukes available to other countries. Therefore they would be pretty worthless as a deterrent. Excellent however for terrorist attacks.

Mahatma coat

Nuclear power is relativley easy compared to nuclear Weapons, so while its entirely possible for a nation to have Nuclear Power, tis not a simple next step to nuclear weapons

Manic Moran

Which came first, nuclear electricity, or nuclear bombs?
The technology for an A-Bomb is really pretty simple. Even the current US nuclear deterrent is based on vacuum tubes.

NTM

Mahatma coat

Does anyone else remember a BBC report from around 96 about one of the reporters going to a Base in Northern Russia to buy a Black market Warhead, the Warhead had been yanked of the nose of a missile witha crowbar and was being stored in the cupboard under the stairs in a regular SemiD in 'suburban' Russia?

50 Megaton yield IIRC