Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 25

Thread: President George W Bush backs Israeli plan for strike on Iran

  1. #1

    President George W Bush backs Israeli plan for strike on Iran

    [url]http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article4322508.ece?print=yes&randnum=1215990614654[/url]

    President George W Bush has told the Israeli government that he may be prepared to approve a future military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiations with Tehran break down, according to a senior Pentagon official.

    Despite the opposition of his own generals and widespread scepticism that America is ready to risk the military, political and economic consequences of an airborne strike on Iran, the president has given an “amber light” to an Israeli plan to attack Iran’s main nuclear sites with long-range bombing sorties, the official told The Sunday Times.

    “Amber means get on with your preparations, stand by for immediate attack and tell us when you’re ready,” the official said. But the Israelis have also been told that they can expect no help from American forces and will not be able to use US military bases in Iraq for logistical support.

    Nor is it certain that Bush’s amber light would ever turn to green without irrefutable evidence of lethal Iranian hostility. Tehran’s test launches of medium-range ballistic missiles last week were seen in Washington as provocative and poorly judged, but both the Pentagon and the CIA concluded that they did not represent an immediate threat of attack against Israeli or US targets.

    “It’s really all down to the Israelis,” the Pentagon official added. “This administration will not attack Iran. This has already been decided. But the president is really preoccupied with the nuclear threat against Israel and I know he doesn’t believe that anything but force will deter Iran.”

    The official added that Israel had not so far presented Bush with a convincing military proposal. “If there is no solid plan, the amber will never turn to green,” he said.

    There was also resistance inside the Pentagon from officers concerned about Iranian retaliation. “The uniform people are opposed to the attack plans, mainly because they think it will endanger our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan,” the source said.

    Complicating the calculations in both Washington and Tel Aviv is the prospect of an incoming Democratic president who has already made it clear that he prefers negotiation to the use of force.

    Senator Barack Obama’s previous opposition to the war in Iraq, and his apparent doubts about the urgency of the Iranian threat, have intensified pressure on the Israeli hawks to act before November’s US presidential election. “If I were an Israeli I wouldn’t wait,” the Pentagon official added.

    The latest round of regional tension was sparked by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which fired nine long and medium-range missiles in war game manoeuvres in the Gulf last Wednesday.

    Iran’s state-run media reported that one of them was a modified Shahab-3 ballistic missile, which has a claimed range of 1,250 miles and could theoretically deliver a one-ton nuclear warhead over Israeli cities. Tel Aviv is about 650 miles from western Iran. General Hossein Salami, a senior Revolutionary Guard commander, boasted that “our hands are always on the trigger and our missiles are ready for launch”.

    Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, said she saw the launches as “evidence that the missile threat is not an imaginary one”, although the impact of the Iranian stunt was diminished on Thursday when it became clear that a photograph purporting to show the missiles being launched had been faked.

    The one thing that all sides agree on is that any strike by either Iran or Israel would trigger a catastrophic round of retaliation that would rock global oil markets, send the price of petrol soaring and wreck the progress of the US military effort in Iraq.

    Abdalla Salem El-Badri, secretary-general of Opec, the oil producers’ consortium, said last week that a military conflict involving Iran would see an “unlimited” rise in prices because any loss of Iranian production — or constriction of shipments through the Strait of Hormuz — could not be replaced. Iran is Opec’s second-largest producer after Saudi Arabia.

    Equally worrying for Bush would be the impact on the US mission in Iraq, which after years of turmoil has seen gains from the military “surge” of the past few months, and on American operations in the wider region. A senior Iranian official said yesterday that Iran would destroy Israel and 32 American military bases in the Middle East in response to any attack.

    Yet US officials acknowledge that no American president can afford to remain idle if Israel is threatened. How genuine the Iranian threat is was the subject of intense debate last week, with some analysts arguing that Iran might have a useable nuclear weapon by next spring and others convinced that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is engaged in a dangerous game of bluffing — mainly to impress a domestic Iranian audience that is struggling with economic setbacks and beginning to question his leadership.

    Among the sceptics is Kenneth Katzman, a former CIA analyst and author of a book on the Revolutionary Guard. “I don’t subscribe to the view that Iran is in a position to inflict devastating damage on anyone,” said Katzman, who is best known for warning shortly before 9/11 that terrorists were planning to attack America.

    “The Revolutionary Guards have always underperformed militarily,” he said. “Their equipment is quite inaccurate if not outright inoperable. Those missile launches were more like putting up a ‘beware of the dog’ sign. They want everyone to think that if you mess with them, you will get bitten.”

    A former adviser to Rice noted that Ahmadinejad’s confrontational attitude had earned him powerful enemies among Iran’s religious leadership. Professor Shai Feldman, director of Middle East studies at Brandeis University, said the Iranian government was getting “clobbered” because of global economic strains. “His [Ahmadinejad's] failed policies have made Iran more vulnerable to sanctions and people close to the mullahs have decided he’s a liability,” he said.

    In Israel, Ehud Olmert, the prime minister, has his own domestic problems with a corruption scandal that threatens to unseat him and the media have been rife with speculation that he might order an attack on Iran to distract attention from his difficulties. According to one of his closest friends, Olmert recently warned him that “in three months’ time it will be a different Middle East”.

    Yet even the most hawkish officials acknowledge that Israel would face what would arguably be the most challenging military mission of its 60-year existence.

    “No one here is talking about more than delaying the [nuclear] programme,” said the Pentagon source. He added that Israel would need to set back the Iranians by at least five years for an attack to be considered a success.

    Even that may be beyond Israel’s competence if it has to act alone. Obvious targets would include Iran’s Isfahan plant, where uranium ore is converted into gas, the Natanz complex where this gas is used to enrich uranium in centrifuges and the plutonium-producing Arak heavy water plant. But Iran is known to have scattered other elements of its nuclear programme in underground facilities around the country. Neither US nor Israeli intelligence is certain that it knows where everything is.

    “Maybe the Israelis could start off the attack and have us finish it off,” Katzman added. “And maybe that has been their intention all along. But in terms of the long-term military campaign that would be needed to permanently suppress Iran’s nuclear programme, only the US is perceived as having that capability right now.”

  2. #2
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2625552][url]http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article4322508.ece?print=yes&randnum=1215990614654[/url]

    President George W Bush has told the Israeli government that he may be prepared to approve a future military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiations with Tehran break down, according to a senior Pentagon official.

    Despite the opposition of his own generals and widespread scepticism that America is ready to risk the military, political and economic consequences of an airborne strike on Iran, the president has given an “amber light” to an Israeli plan to attack Iran’s main nuclear sites with long-range bombing sorties, the official told The Sunday Times.

    “Amber means get on with your preparations, stand by for immediate attack and tell us when you’re ready,” the official said. But the Israelis have also been told that they can expect no help from American forces and will not be able to use US military bases in Iraq for logistical support.

    Nor is it certain that Bush’s amber light would ever turn to green without irrefutable evidence of lethal Iranian hostility. Tehran’s test launches of medium-range ballistic missiles last week were seen in Washington as provocative and poorly judged, but both the Pentagon and the CIA concluded that they did not represent an immediate threat of attack against Israeli or US targets.

    “It’s really all down to the Israelis,” the Pentagon official added. “This administration will not attack Iran. This has already been decided. But the president is really preoccupied with the nuclear threat against Israel and I know he doesn’t believe that anything but force will deter Iran.”

    The official added that Israel had not so far presented Bush with a convincing military proposal. “If there is no solid plan, the amber will never turn to green,” he said.

    There was also resistance inside the Pentagon from officers concerned about Iranian retaliation. “The uniform people are opposed to the attack plans, mainly because they think it will endanger our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan,” the source said.

    Complicating the calculations in both Washington and Tel Aviv is the prospect of an incoming Democratic president who has already made it clear that he prefers negotiation to the use of force.

    Senator Barack Obama’s previous opposition to the war in Iraq, and his apparent doubts about the urgency of the Iranian threat, have intensified pressure on the Israeli hawks to act before November’s US presidential election. “If I were an Israeli I wouldn’t wait,” the Pentagon official added.

    The latest round of regional tension was sparked by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which fired nine long and medium-range missiles in war game manoeuvres in the Gulf last Wednesday.

    Iran’s state-run media reported that one of them was a modified Shahab-3 ballistic missile, which has a claimed range of 1,250 miles and could theoretically deliver a one-ton nuclear warhead over Israeli cities. Tel Aviv is about 650 miles from western Iran. General Hossein Salami, a senior Revolutionary Guard commander, boasted that “our hands are always on the trigger and our missiles are ready for launch”.

    Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, said she saw the launches as “evidence that the missile threat is not an imaginary one”, although the impact of the Iranian stunt was diminished on Thursday when it became clear that a photograph purporting to show the missiles being launched had been faked.

    The one thing that all sides agree on is that any strike by either Iran or Israel would trigger a catastrophic round of retaliation that would rock global oil markets, send the price of petrol soaring and wreck the progress of the US military effort in Iraq.

    Abdalla Salem El-Badri, secretary-general of Opec, the oil producers’ consortium, said last week that a military conflict involving Iran would see an “unlimited” rise in prices because any loss of Iranian production — or constriction of shipments through the Strait of Hormuz — could not be replaced. Iran is Opec’s second-largest producer after Saudi Arabia.

    Equally worrying for Bush would be the impact on the US mission in Iraq, which after years of turmoil has seen gains from the military “surge” of the past few months, and on American operations in the wider region. A senior Iranian official said yesterday that Iran would destroy Israel and 32 American military bases in the Middle East in response to any attack.

    Yet US officials acknowledge that no American president can afford to remain idle if Israel is threatened. How genuine the Iranian threat is was the subject of intense debate last week, with some analysts arguing that Iran might have a useable nuclear weapon by next spring and others convinced that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is engaged in a dangerous game of bluffing — mainly to impress a domestic Iranian audience that is struggling with economic setbacks and beginning to question his leadership.

    Among the sceptics is Kenneth Katzman, a former CIA analyst and author of a book on the Revolutionary Guard. “I don’t subscribe to the view that Iran is in a position to inflict devastating damage on anyone,” said Katzman, who is best known for warning shortly before 9/11 that terrorists were planning to attack America.

    “The Revolutionary Guards have always underperformed militarily,” he said. “Their equipment is quite inaccurate if not outright inoperable. Those missile launches were more like putting up a ‘beware of the dog’ sign. They want everyone to think that if you mess with them, you will get bitten.”

    A former adviser to Rice noted that Ahmadinejad’s confrontational attitude had earned him powerful enemies among Iran’s religious leadership. Professor Shai Feldman, director of Middle East studies at Brandeis University, said the Iranian government was getting “clobbered” because of global economic strains. “His [Ahmadinejad's] failed policies have made Iran more vulnerable to sanctions and people close to the mullahs have decided he’s a liability,” he said.

    In Israel, Ehud Olmert, the prime minister, has his own domestic problems with a corruption scandal that threatens to unseat him and the media have been rife with speculation that he might order an attack on Iran to distract attention from his difficulties. According to one of his closest friends, Olmert recently warned him that “in three months’ time it will be a different Middle East”.

    Yet even the most hawkish officials acknowledge that Israel would face what would arguably be the most challenging military mission of its 60-year existence.

    “No one here is talking about more than delaying the [nuclear] programme,” said the Pentagon source. He added that Israel would need to set back the Iranians by at least five years for an attack to be considered a success.

    Even that may be beyond Israel’s competence if it has to act alone. Obvious targets would include Iran’s Isfahan plant, where uranium ore is converted into gas, the Natanz complex where this gas is used to enrich uranium in centrifuges and the plutonium-producing Arak heavy water plant. But Iran is known to have scattered other elements of its nuclear programme in underground facilities around the country. Neither US nor Israeli intelligence is certain that it knows where everything is.

    “Maybe the Israelis could start off the attack and have us finish it off,” Katzman added. “And maybe that has been their intention all along. But in terms of the long-term military campaign that would be needed to permanently suppress Iran’s nuclear programme, only the US is perceived as having that capability right now.”[/QUOTE]

    Gas prices are going to soar to 10 dollars a gallon. BTW this might start ww3 if Russia backs Iran.

  3. #3
    [QUOTE=jetsfanforlife78;2625575]Gas prices are going to soar to 10 dollars a gallon. BTW this might start ww3 if Russia backs Iran.[/QUOTE]

    I have to say that I am terrified because we have some very bad people in some very powerful positions around the world. That is a recipe for disaster.

  4. #4
    Key phrase is "may be prepared". Interesting how the machine has spun this. This post makes it sound like the U.S. gave the Israelis the go-ahead. Cripes, what a bad post and bad journalism.

  5. #5
    [QUOTE=LyonMtJet;2625577]Key phrase is "may be prepared". Interesting how the machine has spun this. This post makes it sound like the U.S. gave the Israelis the go-ahead. [B]Cripes, what a bad post and bad journalism[/B].[/QUOTE]

    :zzz::zzz::zzz:

    Yes, blame the 'machine' for doing their job.

    "President George W Bush[B] has t[/B][B]old[/B] the Israeli government that he may be prepared to approve a future military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiations with Tehran break down, according to a senior Pentagon official.

    Despite the opposition of his own generals and widespread scepticism that America is ready to risk the military, political and economic consequences of an airborne strike on Iran, the president[B] has given an “amber light” to an Israeli plan to attack Iran’s main nuclear sites with long-range bombing sorties, the official told The Sunday Times"[/B]

  6. #6
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2625578]:zzz::zzz::zzz:

    Yes, blame the 'machine' for doing their job.

    "President George W Bush[B] has t[/B][B]old[/B] the Israeli government that he may be prepared to approve a future military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiations with Tehran break down, according to a senior Pentagon official.

    Despite the opposition of his own generals and widespread scepticism that America is ready to risk the military, political and economic consequences of an airborne strike on Iran, the president[B] has given an “amber light” to an Israeli plan to attack Iran’s main nuclear sites with long-range bombing sorties, the official told The Sunday Times"[/B][/QUOTE]

    Again, very poorly written. "May" and "if" mean "will" and "when" for you, Intel?

    And the dreaded "amber light"...does that mean speed up or slow down?
    Last edited by LyonMtJet; 07-13-2008 at 07:59 PM. Reason: add comment

  7. #7
    The Bush administration just successfully negotiated a nuclear disarmament of NK, negotiated a very favorable package with India and is part of the multi lateral talks with Iran. The US as part of those talks has offered incentives to Iran to stop their enrichment program, something that is supported by the security council of the UN and the EU. Iran has continued to assert its right to enrich bomb grade nuclear material something that Israel will not tolerate and the EU, China, Japan, Russia and the US are unified in their opposition to.

    Fact is Israel has successfully taken out nuclear reactors capable of making bomb grade materials in both Iraq and more recently Syria. This credible threat by Israel with or without our permission may be further incentive for Iran to take a reasonable package to avert the disaster that either awaits Iran if they continue or the West if Iran is successful in their quest for nuclear weapons.

  8. #8
    [QUOTE]But the Israelis have also been told that they [B][U][SIZE="6"][COLOR="Red"]can expect no help from American forces[/COLOR][/SIZE][/U][/B] and will [B][U][SIZE="6"][COLOR="red"]not be able to use US military bases[/COLOR][/SIZE][/U][/B] in Iraq for logistical support. [/QUOTE]

    I'm curious why you guys care what Israel does without U.S. Help or support. After all, aren't yall the same folks who say every day "Let Israel Take Care of Itself"?

    Seems thats exactly what they might do. And as the line above seems to say, it will be without U.S. Help or U.S. Base Logistics.

  9. #9
    But done with the help of U.S. money.

    [QUOTE=Warfish;2625651]I'm curious why you guys care what Israel does without U.S. Help or support. After all, aren't yall the same folks who say every day "Let Israel Take Care of Itself"?

    Seems thats exactly what they might do. And as the line above seems to say, it will be without U.S. Help or U.S. Base Logistics.[/QUOTE]

  10. #10
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Stuart, FL
    Posts
    4,132
    Yeah, screw Israel. How dare they prepare to defend themselves against a Nationn-State about to get Nukes that has sworn to wipe all the Jews and the Nation of Israel from the face of the world. I mean, it is the Jews fault that the Arab world lives in a backward and pathetic state and their people are illiterate goat herders and dirt farmers ruled by billion dollar petro-dictators while Israel is a modern, industrious, fertile country.

    Its all Israels fault. Funny how NOBODY wanted that scrub land in 1947 or so, even the Palestinians barely cared that the Jews moved in. It was only when the Jewish settlers basically took that wasteland and pretty much turned it into Southern California that anybody all of a sudden cared about it and wanted it "back".

    But yeah, Israel should just sit back and let Iran dropped a few nukes on them and finish what Hitler started....oh, my bad. The Holocaust never REALLY happened, right?

    You people sicken me.




    (FYI, I'm an Irish-Catholic. Just thought I'd set that straight.)

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=Jet_Engine1;2625687]Yeah, screw Israel. How dare they prepare to defend themselves against a Nationn-State about to get Nukes that has sworn to wipe all the Jews and the Nation of Israel from the face of the world. I mean, it is the Jews fault that the Arab world lives in a backward and pathetic state and their people are illiterate goat herders and dirt farmers ruled by billion dollar petro-dictators while Israel is a modern, industrious, fertile country.

    Its all Israels fault. Funny how NOBODY wanted that scrub land in 1947 or so, even the Palestinians barely cared that the Jews moved in. It was only when the Jewish settlers basically took that wasteland and pretty much turned it into Southern California that anybody all of a sudden cared about it and wanted it "back".

    But yeah, Israel should just sit back and let Iran dropped a few nukes on them and finish what Hitler started....oh, my bad. The Holocaust never REALLY happened, right?

    You people sicken me.




    (FYI, I'm an Irish-Catholic. Just thought I'd set that straight.)[/QUOTE]

    B-b-b-b-b-but t3h Ziofascists!

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Long Island & Section 337
    Posts
    4,859
    Misleading thread title. Should be changed.

  13. #13
    Why would anyone be AGAINST Israel taking out an Iranian nuclear facility?

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=SanAntonio_JetFan;2626104]Why would anyone be AGAINST Israel taking out an Iranian nuclear facility?[/QUOTE]

    what some people are against is world war three. And, see, since most rational people understand that this administration lied to us about our current war, anything this president says has less then zero credibility. Its what happens when you tell the nation that we are dealing with another Hitler in Iraq. Its what happens when you tell the nation that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction ready to go and we could see mushroom clouds should we not act.

    Its that skepticism that occurs when you look at Vietnam and the pentagon papers. Its what happens when you read up on the gulf of tonkin. And the list goes on.

    So its not that most rational people have any issue with taking out a iranian nuclear facility. Its that most people simply do not trust a word that comes from this administration. As the bodies of American soldiers continue to come home, we have the right to question.

  15. #15
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2626128]what some people are against is world war three. And, see, since most rational people understand that this administration lied to us about our current war, anything this president says has less then zero credibility. Its what happens when you tell the nation that we are dealing with another Hitler in Iraq. Its what happens when you tell the nation that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction ready to go and we could see mushroom clouds should we not act.

    Its that skepticism that occurs when you look at Vietnam and the pentagon papers. Its what happens when you read up on the gulf of tonkin. And the list goes on.

    So its not that most rational people have any issue with taking out a iranian nuclear facility. Its that most people simply do not trust a word that comes from this administration. As the bodies of American soldiers continue to come home, we have the right to question.[/QUOTE]



    Do you oppose it after this administration is gone?

  16. #16
    [QUOTE=SanAntonio_JetFan;2626199]Do you oppose it after this administration is gone?[/QUOTE]

    It would depend on who the next president is and what the makeup of his cabinet would be.

    I believe that the Bush Administration had designs on invading both Iraq and Iran assuming they were reelected. As Senator Biden stated, this war was about controlling the oil in the middle east. But, due to poor planning, the Iraq War did not go as smoothly as they had hoped to make it appear. If the Bush Administration was able to sell the country on how necessary AND successful this war was then the democrats would never had taken control of the house and senate. Bush would have then beat the drums of war to go into Iran, but with considerably more support.

  17. #17
    I think we can trust Israel on this one, the IDF is a very well trained military. Israel has had to fight off a major attack, practically every decade that they have been existent. IDF generals have a carefully drawn up plan for an attack like this.

  18. #18
    [QUOTE=Carthage;2626294]I think we can trust Israel on this one, the IDF is a very well trained military. Israel has had to fight off a major attack, practically every decade that they have been existent. IDF generals have a carefully drawn up plan for an attack like this.[/QUOTE]


    Besides, they've already done this in the past. They took out the Iraqi Osirak nuclear facility in 1981.

  19. #19
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,246
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2625578]:zzz::zzz::zzz:

    Yes, blame the 'machine' for doing their job.

    "President George W Bush[B] has t[/B][B]old[/B] the Israeli government that he may be prepared to approve a future military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiations with Tehran break down, according to a senior Pentagon official.

    Despite the opposition of his own generals and widespread scepticism that America is ready to risk the military, political and economic consequences of an airborne strike on Iran, the president[B] has given an “amber light” to an Israeli plan to attack Iran’s main nuclear sites with long-range bombing sorties, the official told The Sunday Times"[/B][/QUOTE]


    [I]"President George W Bush has told the Israeli government that he [B][COLOR="Red"]may [/COLOR][/B]be prepared to approve a future military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities [B][COLOR="Red"]if [/COLOR][/B]negotiations with Tehran break down, according to a senior Pentagon official."[/I]


    Yeah. Sounds like a sure thing. What in intelligent interpretation.

  20. #20
    [QUOTE=SanAntonio_JetFan;2626104]Why would anyone be AGAINST Israel taking out an Iranian nuclear facility?[/QUOTE]

    Isn't Israel the one that has more than a nuclear facility? Also doesn't the treaties signed state that Iran can have a nuclear facility which is different froma nuclear bomb?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us