Israel Pushing the United States to Attack Iran

[Frodo]

if either Israel and/or the United States make military strikes on Iran, what's to prevent it from falling upon US troops in Iraq, currently struggling to put down an insurgency?

Israel pushes U.S. on Iran nuke solution

By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Israel has been privately pressing Washington to solve the Iran nuclear problem in a hint that Tel Aviv may be left with no choice but to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities, defense officials say.
    Military analysts say the United States "would have no problem" taking out Iran's major nuclear facilities should it decide to launch a pre-emptive strike.
    The defense officials say Israel isn't putting its concerns about Iran in the form of a "you attack or we do" ultimatum to the United States. But they said senior Israeli officials often have raised the Iran problem during visits to Washington in the past 18 months.
    Tel Aviv's concerns are one reason the Bush administration in the past year has ratcheted up its rhetoric and its intelligence collection on Iran's clandestine program to build nuclear weapons, including surveillance flights by unmanned U.S. planes.
    The officials said they think President Bush, who has adopted a policy of pre-emption to prevent terrorists from obtaining atomic arms, is on a course to take military action before he leaves office in 2009.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050221-123842-3048r.htm

[Shira]

if either Israel and/or the United States make military strikes on Iran, what's to prevent it from falling upon US troops in Iraq, currently struggling to put down an insurgency?

Israel pushes U.S. on Iran nuke solution

By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Israel has been privately pressing Washington to solve the Iran nuclear problem in a hint that Tel Aviv may be left with no choice but to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities, defense officials say.
    Military analysts say the United States "would have no problem" taking out Iran's major nuclear facilities should it decide to launch a pre-emptive strike.
    The defense officials say Israel isn't putting its concerns about Iran in the form of a "you attack or we do" ultimatum to the United States. But they said senior Israeli officials often have raised the Iran problem during visits to Washington in the past 18 months.
    Tel Aviv's concerns are one reason the Bush administration in the past year has ratcheted up its rhetoric and its intelligence collection on Iran's clandestine program to build nuclear weapons, including surveillance flights by unmanned U.S. planes.
    The officials said they think President Bush, who has adopted a policy of pre-emption to prevent terrorists from obtaining atomic arms, is on a course to take military action before he leaves office in 2009.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050221-123842-3048r.htm

Iran is not a Democracy, so we can justifiably categorize them as “bad guys”.
But when they say “we don’t have any intention to develop nuclear weapon”, they sound to me more reliable then VP D.Cheney  who scars are all the time with his “Wolf, wolf….”

[phk]

Its time for Israel to do something on its own, the American way.

[Shira]

Its time for Israel to do something on its own, the American way.

Its time for America to put a real pressure on Israel to evacuate all the settlements in the occupied territories.

[Moooooo]

No, it is time for the Palestinians to stup g kill gay Palestinians and enslave their women.

Have you been hittin' the old Absinth tonight?

[Richard]

No, just sick and tired of liberals supporting Palestine and other Muslim states instead of Israel and the United States.  It is like a rabid mental disorder that is highly infectious.

[The Duke]

Its time for Israel to do something on its own, the American way.

Its time for America to put a real pressure on Israel to evacuate all the settlements in the occupied territories.

Have you EVER read a newspaper?  The Israeli cabinet voted for a plan TODAY that pulls out of almost all the settlements.  Sharon put his whole career on the line in support of the vote.

[Erc]

[fyi...it's the settlements in Gaza.  Not the ones in the West Bank, which are the ones that really matter.  Anyway, back to the topic at hand]

Israel pulls an Osirak on Iran.

Iran implicates us.  After all, we either A) told them to do it.  B) were told by them that they were going to do it, and approved/said nothing.  C) were told by them that we were going to do it, protested, but did nothing.  D) weren't told by them about anything, but they flew over Iraqi [ie US] airspace.

In any event, a resolution goes before the Security Council to condemn Israel.  If we veto it, we are automatically implicated.  If not, we lose face [although abstaining might be a good way out].

Palestine disengages from the peace process (or at least the terrorists do).  At the very least, Hezbollah starts blowing up stuff.

Syria makes noises on the Golan Heights frontier, moves even more troops into Lebanon.

Syria and Iran now have a choice.  The ball's in their court.  Do they provoke a war, or not?  [Note, that since it's their decision, they have maybe up to three weeks to prepare for a war].

If they do:

Syria attacks Israel.  This might seem suicidal, but the point is of course to get other countries (Egypt, et al) involved.

Iran continues the rhetoric that the US was complicit with the bombing, and demands that they condemn and embargo Israel to absolve ourselves [note that this argument will likely convince most of Europe].  We refuse.  Iran invades and uses its minions in the South (al-Sadr).

So, now, with Israel and the US in the same boat, the Vast Zionist Conspiracy is proven.  Popular riots across the Middle East for war against Israel and the US.  Whether any states other than Syria and Iran do it is unknown.

Israel:  Huge spate of suicide bombings, but on the conventional front, they should have no problem beating off any attacks on itself.  Will likely focus on Hezbollah in Lebanon.  Whether Israeli public opinion remains with Sharon's government is unknown--but even if Labour takes power, it isn't likely to end the war anytime soon.

Iraq:

Kurds:  Will Remain American Allies, start uprisings in Iranian-held Kurdistan.

Sunnis:  Hate the Americans, but hate the Iranians more.  Likely to be quite supportive of Syria--although it's quite unlikely that Syria will get anywhere in Iraq beyond the far western airfields.  In the end, a general bloodbath is likely.

Shias:  Secular Shias will deplore the invasion.  Sadr will be an agent of the invasion.  Sistani...hard to say.  Very unlikely to support Israel, but doesn't want Iran to take over, either.

Best-Case Scenario (in the event of war):

Syria and Iran are left alone by the Arab world, which doesn't bow to the protests.

Sistani condemns the invasion and al-Sadr, leading to general messiness down south (but one that can be dealt with).

Israel whips the Syrians and knocks them out of the war.  NixonNow is deposed.

Our airforce decimates Iranian military installations (but doesn't attack civilian/utility/non-military communications) and units, and within a few months begins driving into Iran.  Disappointed at the failure in the war, the government of Iran is overthrown.

Everyone's happy.  Except the Kurds, but they're the perennial whipping-boy of the world.

Worst-case scenario:

Entire Arab World declares war on us.

Israel gets bogged down in Lebanon, war loses public support, Israel effectively out of it for a few months after Labour comes back into power before it realizes the war just isn't going to end.

Sunnis start killing everything in sight.

Sistani supports the revolution.

American troops either make a run for it (through Syria or through the desert to Kuwait), retreat into the Kurdish areas, or hole themselves up in the Green Zone, which turns into a much bloodier Saigon '75.

The first seems ludicrous (especially due to the fact that the Kurds would likely demand independence after liberating their brothers in Iran).  The second seems a bit too pessimistic.

But it wouldn't be good for either side, so the Iranians might not risk it.  Although if they didn't they'd really lose face.

I think Israel is smart enough not to hit Iran until we're ready to invade.

[Shira]

Its time for Israel to do something on its own, the American way.

Its time for America to put a real pressure on Israel to evacuate all the settlements in the occupied territories.

Have you EVER read a newspaper?  The Israeli cabinet voted for a plan TODAY that pulls out of almost all the settlements.  Sharon put his whole career on the line in support of the vote.

You are an ignorant. They are evacuating 8000 settlers out of 300,000.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Iran is not a Democracy, so we can justifiably categorize them as “bad guys”.
But when they say “we don’t have any intention to develop nuclear weapon”, they sound to me more reliable then VP D.Cheney  who scars are all the time with his “Wolf, wolf….”

Pakistan is not a democracy either, and they have a nuclear weapons program as well. But I have yet to hear a peep from Bush to get them to stop it.

[skybridge]

Iran is not a Democracy, so we can justifiably categorize them as “bad guys”.
But when they say “we don’t have any intention to develop nuclear weapon”, they sound to me more reliable then VP D.Cheney  who scars are all the time with his “Wolf, wolf….”

Pakistan is not a democracy either, and they have a nuclear weapons program as well. But I have yet to hear a peep from Bush to get them to stop it.

Pakistan was rewarded with special non-NATIO ally status just so Musharraf outlives the MMA.

[TexasPatriot2024]

This has the potential to turn into a huge war. Isreal can handle its self against Syria and Egypt but throwing Iran into the mix in effect pulls us into the deal. I dont like it. This has the potential to blow up in our faces and turn the whole region into a big battle ground. However we need to support our allies. The point that Europe wont like this war is off balence. France is at odds with Syria and they strongly support the liberation of Lebenon. Also Iran is set up for this attack. We control Afganistan to the east and Iraq to the west while the southern border is the Persian Gulf, we can invade from huge borders and launch Crusie missles straight into the enemy without having to negociate with other countries. I still dont like the idea but it seems ineviatable

[Frodo]

let me ask you all a question -if we do go to war with Iran as an indirect result of the Pearl Harbor-style air-assault by Israel, and after Iran has attacked the 130,000-man expeditionary force we have in Iraq in retaliation (as well as all the other scenarios that Texas Patriot mentioned), do you think that this could result in the reinstatement of the draft?  and please, avoid rolling your eyes when you see the word -try to view it objectively.  we already have serious manpower shortages with the volunteer military we currently have (and i posted an article not long ago testifying to the declining recruitment levels that the active-duty Army is undergoing).  where are we going to find the troops to fight a war with both Iraqi insurgents and the entire Iranian military (and perhaps a host of other forces in the Middle East that could be inspired to fall upon us) without the draft?  and if there is a draft, would you support it? 

[The Duke]

let me ask you all a question -if we do go to war with Iran as an indirect result of the Pearl Harbor-style air-assault by Israel, and after Iran has attacked the 130,000-man expeditionary force we have in Iraq in retaliation (as well as all the other scenarios that Texas Patriot mentioned), do you think that this could result in the reinstatement of the draft?  and please, avoid rolling your eyes when you see the word -try to view it objectively.  we already have serious manpower shortages with the volunteer military we currently have (and i posted an article not long ago testifying to the declining recruitment levels that the active-duty Army is undergoing).  where are we going to find the troops to fight a war with both Iraqi insurgents and the entire Iranian military (and perhaps a host of other forces in the Middle East that could be inspired to fall upon us) without the draft?  and if there is a draft, would you support it? 

If properly run, no.

The US haas no ability to sustain long term deployments on top of what we have right now, but we can sustain a short term deploynment of additional forces to Iraq to defend it from Iran.  We eould be fighting a defensive war, against a conventional attakcing foe, with air superiority, on favorable terrain, with large segments of Iran's military forced to stay back home to guard against revolution.

The 130,000 man force in Iraq could be quickly augmented by our airborne forces.  With our sealift, airlift, and civilian airliners (which cna be commandeered in emergency) we have the ability if need be to put nearly 200,000 additional men and their equipment into Iraq in 45 days, combat ready.  From the moment we see Iran mobilize we could be responding with added deployments.  Not to be arrogant, but no draft would be needed, as the war would be won in rather short order.

[opebo]

No, just sick and tired of liberals supporting Palestine and other Muslim states instead of Israel and the United States.  It is like a rabid mental disorder that is highly infectious.

I see no reason to support either side.  Sure, Muslims are more repulsive as a culture/religion than Jews, but neither are secularist.  Personally I'd be happy if all the religious took care of one another, leaving the rest of us out of it.

[Hitchabrut]

What I love is seeing how screwed the Lebanese situation is, and how they can thank the U.N. for forcing Israel out.