Can Israel start an attack on Iran all on its lonely?

Probably, yes.

But can it finish such an attack without the help of US air power?

Probably not.

And remember: Bush has promised that the US will support Israel military, no matter who starts the shooting.

It looks as though Israel's plan is to start an attack, and expect that the US will finish it for Israel.

I'd love to believe that there are some in congress, the military, and the executive who would be willing to throw cold water on such foolishness, but unfortunately, considering the stranglehold Israel has over this government, that's not about to happen.



Iran and Washington's Israeli option

By Paul Reynolds
World affairs correspondent, BBC News website

The possible timing of any Israeli attack on Iran remains uncertain

(This is an interestingly benign statement, considering that Israel has no just cause for attacking another sovereign state, and any attack would constitute "The Supreme International Crime", demanding immediate sanctions and/or intervention by the International Community.)

The warning by the senior US military commander Adm Mike Mullen that an attack on Iran would be "extremely stressful" for US forces must lessen the chances of the US taking part in any strike against Iran.

(Don't count on it. We're not dealing with rational people here ...)

But the admiral, who is chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and who has just visited Israel, spoke of Israel's vulnerability to "very real threats".

(However, Israeli and American insiders have published reports which contradict this assessment, saying Israel is acting from a position of military superiority, and the only real threat facing Israel is that its ruling Extremists will start another illegal war.)

So the possibility remains that Israel might undertake an operation against Iran by itself. Recent large-scale Israeli air force exercises have strengthened this possibility, according to military observers.

(However - and this is an issue the media is conspicuously avoiding - Bush has signed agreements which state that the US military will intervene in any war between Iran and Israel - even if Israel is the Aggressor.)

Nor does Adm Mullen's intervention resolve the ambiguity of the Bush administration's position that "all options" are on the table.

(There is no 'abiguity' ...)

But his views do indicate that the body of US military opinion is that they have their hands full in Iraq and Afghanistan.

(Or the US military is at odds with their own ruling Extremists, or the Neo-Fascists are making a public show of pretending they are not interested in another war.)

Administration at odds

Adm Mullen's opinion echoes what the then head of Central Command, Adm William Fallon, said last November, that an attack on Iran was not "in the offing".

(Bush/PNAC have planned a war. Whether or not their military will allow them to prosecute another illegal war of aggression, based solely on a violent ideology, is the only question.)

"Iran is not making highly enriched uranium suitable for a weapon, only low-enriched uranium useable as nuclear power fuel"

Adm Fallon resigned in March amid reports that he was at odds with the administration over Iran.

Increasingly, the military option seems to be narrowing to an Israeli option.

(Which only means that Israel will now be the ones to start the war, which will then draw the US military in.)

While Adm Mullen did not diverge from the Bush administration's line that the military option remains for the US and also said that in his view Iran was working to develop nuclear weapons, he stressed that "the solution still lies in using... diplomatic, financial and international pressure".

(However, since there is no 'nuclear crisis', and this LIE is simply a reenactment of the "Iraq Treatment", these are hollow and empty words. This is about starting a war in order to try and gain control over Iran. Period.)

Military opposition to an attack on Iran is bound to weigh heavily on President George W Bush but would not necessarily be the determining factor.

(No, these Extremists don't consider the people who will be forced to do the fighting an dying because of their Madness ...)

Whether President Bush would dissuade Israel from launching its own attack is not known.

(If he wanted to ...)

Iran has warned that any attack would bring consequences, one of which could be an Iranian move to close the Straits of Hormuz, through which oil is transported from the Gulf. The effect on oil prices would be serious.

(Another powerful motive for these Extremists, most, if not all, of whom draw wealth from the oil and arms industries, and therefore, profit directly from conflict.)

An Israeli cabinet minister and former chief of staff, Shaul Mofaz, has said that an attack on Iran is "unavoidable" if it "continues with its nuclear programme".

(However, Iran has done absolutely nothing wrong, and Israel and the US have deliberately engineered the illusion of a crisis, in order to pretend they are not aggressively pursuing more illegal war.)

However, the timing of any attack remains uncertain.

Red lines

A recent ABC News report suggested that Israel might act before two "red lines" are reached.

The first would be the production by Iran of enough highly-enriched uranium to make a nuclear bomb and the second would be its acquisition of a new Russian anti-aircraft system, the S-300.

(The first of which is impossible, given the small scale of Iran's current program. Enriching weapons-grade material would involve a massive addition to their program, a move which would be immediately to the many eyes intently watching Iran. Neither of these would legitimize Israel's aggression against a sovereign state, and member of the United Nations.)

However, Iran is not making highly enriched uranium suitable for a weapon, only low-enriched uranium useable as nuclear power fuel.

The International Atomic Energy Agency would probably spot any move to change this. So exactly how and when this "red line" might be reached is unclear.

(It won't. Israel is simply using the same fearmongering deceit they, the Bush and Bliar Regimes used in order to create an illusion of a threat posed by Iraq, which necessitated their illegal aggression.)

As for the S-300, it was only in December that Iran indicated that it would buy this very advanced anti-aircraft system. It has only recently taken possession of the Tor-MI and it could be many months before the S-300 is delivered.

(And they have only requested these defensive weapons because of the conspiracy by the Israeli and American Governments to attack it without cause. It should also be noted here that Iran maintains a defence pact with Russia.)

Iran says that it has no intention of developing nuclear weapons and a US National Intelligence Estimate has concluded that it probably gave up a nuclear weapons programme in 2003.

(No, despite the media's narrow focus on this claim, the NIE said they have no current program, and the singular claim that they once had a program came from a dubious source, another of the CIA's infamous 'defectors', reminiscent of the phony information provided by the criminal Ahmed Chalabi. The IAEA has also ssupported the fact that there is no such program.

Israel and the US have yet to produce one piece of contrary evidence ...)

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7486971.stm

Anti-Iran War Arguments Belie Fearmongering
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/07/402416.html

Israel "Reassures West": No Iran Attack in 2008
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/07/402411.html

Iran is Not the Belligerent Party
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/07/402407.html

US Escalates 'Covert Operations' (TERRORISM) Against Iran
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/07/402400.html

 http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=7649

somebody give that man a cigar!

Quote:
"revealing his disbelief at members of Congress who have openly voiced support for a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the country. Does this indicate that we can expect more 'terror' attacks both here and in the US?"

This article deals with an impending attack by the US on Iran and seems to suggest that by attacking Iran the US will experience terrorism...thereby proving that the US is right to attack it, because Iran is engaged with and sponsors terrorism.

Psychology 101?

Not to pick at the original poster but it seems to me that the US is using the media to try to put pressure on Iran to do something stupid or to cause them to 'allow the US to save face'. I agree that the US is expert with its own brand of 'terrorism' and that its relationship with Israel clearly amounts to bi-lateral terrorism. This 'polemic' is evidence of it. There is a story out there somewhere about Iranian leaders deciding to allow 'foreign' companies to buy up domestic companies as long as they do not seek to own more than 35% of each industry. The Iranians seem up for this.

All this nonsense about war just around the corner seems to be about that and nothing else, its economics. Britain is pariah around the world and Israel is significantly weaker no than it was just 5 years ago. The US is a joke.

War with Iran would pretty much finish us off for good...sod the terrorism, the economics would have Britain, America and Israel in full retreat all over the world. The price of oil would rocket upwards and, well, that would cause sky-rocketing inflation. The petrodollar would collapse, the US economy would collapse, the US would be forced to withdraw within months from Iraq/ Afghanistan as would Britain and Israel would be thoroughly left on its own amongst a sea of belligerents.

(God, I hope this is all it is, More war just doesn't bear thinking about does it!)

The poster above, whilst having a lovely, twee, reasonable view of the situation nonetheless either misunderstands the complexity of the situation or prefers their own rose tinted view, whereby it seems to me that they presume that the political elites of the US, Israel and the UK are 'reasonable' men just as the poster seems to be. Reasonable however with no apparent understanding of geopolitical/economic strategy/reality.

Firstly, how the hell did they arrive at the presumption that the article implied the suggestion 'that by attacking Iran the US will experience terrorism...thereby proving that the US is right to attack it, because Iran is engaged with and sponsors terrorism.'?

That is not what the article says at all. To me it seems to say that if the US were to attack iran, as all the pointers seem to indicate may well happen, probably using Israel as a proxy vanguard, then in order to justify its intervention to its own people the possibility of a further false flag operation, or a home grown 'terror' attack set up by the US, may be likely. It also seems to imply that something similar may happen over here in the UK.

Furthermore to stipulate that to enter into a larger conflict would be detrimental to the economy.... are they serious? I thought everyone knew that war was one of the major means for boosting the economy and public cohesion in times of recession, War is the Health of the State and all that. There are enough examples in history to prove that. Take the Falklands as a good case in point close to home.

But then again, to be honest, the final sentiment of the poster, 'More war just doesn't bear thinking about does it!', just about sums it up really doesn't it?

Let's just hope there aren't too many more people who have their head stuck in the sand like this

I shall go away and have another long look at it all. Considering I have my head stuck in the sand and have adopted a 'twee' outlook.

But before I go, and in good faith, I will say this.

Globalisation is not taking place because its cool or because someone thought it was a laugh...it takes place because we are unable to support our domestic populations in the life they have become accustomed to. We adopt a policy of globalisation because we have to, not because we want to.

Brits and Americans want it all, all the time.

Does war form the basis of our collective wealth in the form of militarily 'assisted' profits? Of course it does. The American economy simply could not function without the 'self-perpetuating' arms races it has indulged in, and found, over the years. The Americans simply cannot function in a peaceful world. A peaceful world is one that, by definition, does not include the existence of America.

But globalisation has been attempted before and has always failed miserably...hasn't it?

OPEC are in control here and will continue to be for sometime. While we stay in Iraq/Afghanistan the price of oil WILL continue to rise and in the end this will break both the US and UK economies.

Oh and by the way I don't presume the Americans or the British leadership to be reasonable nor do I assume the 'Israeli psychological global experiment' to be reasonable either. It is not reasonable. But it does need to be fixed.

And in the absence of anything appearing in either the UK, US or Israel to deal with it then it clearly falls upon 'other' nations to take over and deal with it on our behalf.

"Let's just hope there aren't too many more people who have their head stuck in the sand like this".

To want peace and to be free of constant war means I have my head stuck in the sand?

Good grief.

OK, let's analyse these comments:

'Globalisation is not taking place because its cool or because someone thought it was a laugh...it takes place because we are unable to support our domestic populations in the life they have become accustomed to. We adopt a policy of globalisation because we have to, not because we want to.'

There are two telling clauses in this statement-
1- 'the life [we] have become ACCUSTOMED to'- Exactly. There is nothing definite or preordained about this cultural way of life which we adopt, we arrive at it through choice, or at least through perceived choice, in that we are, in Western culture, all too ready to believe that the choices presented to us by a system based upon competition and immediate gratification (commodity capitalism) are the only choices we have. The fact that this dynamic is accepted without question is revealed in the second telling clause-

2- 'because we have to, not because we want to'. We HAVE to? How do you arrive at the conclusion that the choices which you make which prolong and reinforce this system based upon individual gratification through the exploitation of external actors are the responsibility of anybody else but yourself? This is like saying 'it wasn't me, he made me do it' or 'but, I was only following orders'. To take this stance negates the important role that free will, self responsibility, empathy and mutual respect play in shaping the society and culture in which we live. To say this simply shows that you have given in, that you have accepted the system, with all of its faults, as inevitable- as something which you can do nothing against. This is in the worst spirit of defeatism and nothing more than an apology for the current system of cut-throat predatory capitalism which has invaded every aspect of our daily lives.

You should be ashamed to put forward such sentiments! Where are your feelings of mutual respect, fair play and consideration for yourself and all others around you?

Furthermore, I like your assertion that OPEC are in control. In control of what? This situation cannot be boiled down to 'who controls the oil', it is bigger than that. You must also take other geo-political factors into account as well as the show that the politicians must put on for the folks back at home. If only it was so easy....

I do hope that my assertions above and in the previous post are taken in the spirit in which they are given by the way, I do realise that they may appear somewhat rude. But I just find it constantly frustrating that people are all too ready to make a half hearted analysis of a situation and are even more too ready to fob off responsibility for everything and anything to governments or somebody else.

Alas, I fear that this is the curse of our so-called 'representative democracy', that we can defer responsibility for anything, no matter how big or small, on to somebody else and that by doing so it no longer remains our responsibility. What a load of twaddle! But unfortunately a clever ruse which the people have fallen for and one that is bound to give those in power a lot of leeway in directing things their way in the years to come. You have been warned! (joke)You