Leaks have recently surfaced indicating that Israel might transit via Azerbaijan in order to attack Iranian nuclear facilities.
Some folks accuse the Obama administration as being the source of those leaks.
QuoteQuoting unnamed senior US diplomats and military intelligence officials, a lengthy article in Foreign Policy magazine asserts that "Israel has recently been granted access to airbases on Iran's northern border."
"The Israelis have bought an airfield," a senior administration official is quoted as saying, "and the airfield is called Azerbaijan."
Why would US officials be talking about this? Likely to slow down any rush to war in an already volatile region, some speculate.
Source: http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/did-us-leak-israeli-plans-azerbaijan-base
It is stuff like this that makes the attack on the USS Liberty more justifiable.
I don't think it will be anything so dramatic.
The timing of the strike will be in September. Late. Just enough for gas prices to become the October Surprise. It will be the departure gift to an unappreciative president.
Yikes, we had 34 soldiers die in that attack. Lets hope that isn't viewed as a justified response here.
I know...my point is that the USS Liberty was most likely attacked by Israeli forces in 1967 because it was a US intelligence gathering vessel spying on Israeli military communications and movements in the middle of a life and death war with three of its enemies. The Israeli's knew that the US might leak any intelligence gathered by the Liberty in order to help shape the outcome or alter Israel's diplomatic/political position.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on March 30, 2012, 02:56:50 PM
Yikes, we had 34 soldiers die in that attack. Lets hope that isn't viewed as a justified response.
They were sailors...not soldiers. And I do believe that the attack was in many ways, justifiable. Note, I said "justifiable" not "justified."
I'm not sure I understand the distinction between sailors and soldiers here. I was simply meaning "members of our armed services." At any rate, violence as a response would be very bad. Given that Israel excused the Liberty incident as a mistake and paid a large indemnity, the diplomatic justification was fairly shaky at the time, too.
The tensions between all three sides - Iran, Israel, and America - don't need to be exacerbated. I agree this is a dangerous game for the administrations (both of the US and Israel) to play.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on March 30, 2012, 03:03:35 PM
I'm not sure I understand the distinction between sailors and soldiers here. I was simply meaning "members of our armed services."
It makes a big difference to the military bubbas. If you meant "members of our armed services," you should have said that, rather than just getting it wrong! ;)
Seriously though, it shows a level of respect and understanding.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on March 30, 2012, 03:03:35 PM
At any rate, violence as a response would be very bad. Given that Israel excused the Liberty incident as a mistake and paid a large indemnity, the diplomatic justification was fairly shaky at the time, too.
It was absolutely a dangerous gamble. But someone, clearly at the highest level of Israeli government, made a determination that the potential damage caused by intelligence leaked by the US to Israel's enemies outweighed the potential damage caused by a limited strike on a Us naval asset. And guess what? They were right, because the US government did everything they could do to avoid fallout, as well, and cover this affair up. Israel made very calculated decisions, I believe, in considering the importance of Jewish support to President Johnson in getting re-elected during the Vietnam War, which was becoming ever more unpopular. Israel knew that Johnson could not afford another foreign affairs debacle.
In any event, the diplomatic justification was not shaky. It was just simply a lie. There is no question that the hours long attack by both aviation and naval forces in broad daylight was no mistake.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on March 30, 2012, 03:03:35 PM
The tensions between all three sides - Iran, Israel, and America - don't need to be exacerbated. I agree this is a dangerous game for the administrations (both of the US and Israel) to play.
I'm not suggesting that the Israel should attack the US. I'm only suggesting that current US intelligence leaks of Israeli military posturing, intentions and capabilities, show us the rationale for what was the most likely provocation of the Liberty incident.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on March 30, 2012, 03:03:35 PM
I'm not sure I understand the distinction between sailors and soldiers here.
Seriously??!! How about Airmen?
Quote from: Centurion40 on March 30, 2012, 03:19:37 PM
Quote from: son_of_montfort on March 30, 2012, 03:03:35 PM
I'm not sure I understand the distinction between sailors and soldiers here.
Seriously??!! How about Airmen?
Relax. You start the back nine in fifteen minutes.
I'd be more inclinded to believe the leak was a directed leak by the Adminstration to expose and return Israel to a defensive posture again.
There is more than just the Iran-Israel-US triangle to consider. You also have a more agressive Turkish government in the region and a much, much more anti-Israel government in Egypt.
QuoteSeriously though, it shows a level of respect and understanding.
There was no disrespect intended. Just remember, for the period I study, we call them "seamen," which is far less respectful sounding, IMHO.
Bison, good points.
I'm not sure that Israel's foreign policy decisions pose a path that is best suited to benefit America. The political hedging going on here is fairly reminiscent of the 60s, and I think the thing to take away from the above discussion is that hedging like this often has unforeseen negative consequences.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on March 30, 2012, 03:57:54 PM
QuoteSeriously though, it shows a level of respect and understanding.
There was no disrespect intended.
There is no doubt in my mind that disrespect was not intended. But take the point to heart, veterans and those on active/reserve duty will be irritated by the oversight. If you don't believe me, try calling a Marine a soldier to his face, and see how he responds.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on March 30, 2012, 03:57:54 PM
Just remember, for the period I study, we call them "seamen," which is far less respectful sounding, IMHO.
Not going to argue this point.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on March 30, 2012, 03:57:54 PM
I'm not sure that Israel's foreign policy decisions pose a path that is best suited to benefit America. The political hedging going on here is fairly reminiscent of the 60s, and I think the thing to take away from the above discussion is that hedging like this often has unforeseen negative consequences.
Israel's policy decisions have always been guided by one principle and one principle only...Israel will do what is best for Israel. There is no doubting this.
If the leak is real, it's sole purpose was to remove any advantage Israel had in a pre-emptive strike and discourage it.
Quote from: Bison on March 30, 2012, 04:16:37 PM
If the leak is real, it's sole purpose was to remove any advantage Israel had in a pre-emptive strike and discourage it.
I don't think anyone is arguing that point.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on March 30, 2012, 04:35:54 PM
Quote from: Bison on March 30, 2012, 04:16:37 PM
If the leak is real, it's sole purpose was to remove any advantage Israel had in a pre-emptive strike and discourage it.
I don't think anyone is arguing that point.
The question would be why?
Another thing to consider is that the Adminstration just allowed several European allies "permission" to deal with Iran for oil.
Not saying the leak was good, as it certainly seems underhanded.
Most leaks are... ;)
Feels like we are back in the cold war again.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on March 30, 2012, 04:35:54 PM
Quote from: Bison on March 30, 2012, 04:16:37 PM
If the leak is real, it's sole purpose was to remove any advantage Israel had in a pre-emptive strike and discourage it.
I don't think anyone is arguing that point.
Another possibility is forcing Iran to react now rather than later. Its unlikely they will stop their mad push for nukes until they are on the brink of war. A "leak", if real, could be to persuade them that that point is now, and that they better back away. Getting them to stop with out a war is a better outcome for all than having one.
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, bluffs only work when there is a credible threat to back them up.
The US appears to be doing everything it can behind the scenes to ensure the message sent is that we have no interest in following up a bluff with force.
There is no bluff.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17879744
Ex head of Shin Bet against a strike, ex head of Mossad against it, Chief of Staff against it. It is incredibly complicated to assess even inside Israel's military and intelligence structure...
Quote from: Hartford688 on April 28, 2012, 11:44:39 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17879744 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17879744)
Ex head of Shin Bet against a strike, ex head of Mossad against it, Chief of Staff against it. It is incredibly complicated to assess even inside Israel's military and intelligence structure...
Thx for link.
There was an article on this [below] a few days ago.
"Chief of Staff Lt Gen Benny Gantz said he believed international sanctions against Iran were bearing fruit in dissuading it from taking such a decision."[/size][/size]I didnt link it wondering if anyone else would say anything. The article seemed to say he had thought long and hard on the subject before making a public statement.
QuoteThe U.S. military has deployed several F-22s, the nation's most advanced fighter jets, to an allied base less than 200 miles from Iran.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/27/us-deploys-f-22s-to-base-near-iran/?test=latestnews
Quote from: LongBlade on April 28, 2012, 03:12:24 PM
QuoteThe U.S. military has deployed several F-22s, the nation's most advanced fighter jets, to an allied base less than 200 miles from Iran.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/27/us-deploys-f-22s-to-base-near-iran/?test=latestnews
That's a pretty clear message. There sure have been a lot of interesting "routine deployments" in the Gulf.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/09/us-navy-says-2nd-aircraft-carrier-in-gulf-region-part-routine-deployment/?intcmp=obnetwork
Quote from: mirth on April 28, 2012, 03:19:35 PM
Quote from: LongBlade on April 28, 2012, 03:12:24 PM
QuoteThe U.S. military has deployed several F-22s, the nation's most advanced fighter jets, to an allied base less than 200 miles from Iran.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/27/us-deploys-f-22s-to-base-near-iran/?test=latestnews
That's a pretty clear message. There sure have been a lot of interesting "routine deployments" in the Gulf.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/09/us-navy-says-2nd-aircraft-carrier-in-gulf-region-part-routine-deployment/?intcmp=obnetwork
I'm awaiting us to routinely deploy about five thousand cruise missiles into Iran.
There's much, much more than just the F22s...
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/04/armada-masses-near-iran/
Quote from: David Axe at WIRED MagazineThe U.S. Air Force is quietly assembling the world's most powerful air-to-air fighting team at bases near Iran. Stealthy F-22 Raptors on their first front-line deployment have joined a potent mix of active-duty and Air National Guard F-15 Eagles, including some fitted with the latest advanced radars. The Raptor-Eagle team has been honing special tactics for clearing the air of Iranian fighters in the event of war.
The fighters join a growing naval armada that includes Navy carriers, submarines, cruisers and destroyers plus patrol boats and minesweepers enhanced with the latest close-in weaponry.
It's been years since the Air Force has maintained a significant dogfighting presence in the Middle East. During the 2003 invasion of Iraq Boeing-made F-15Cs flew air patrols from Saudi Arabia, but the Iraqi air force put up no resistance and the Eagle squadrons soon departed. For the next nine years Air Force deployments to the Middle East were handled by ground-attack planes such as A-10s, F-16s and twin-seat F-15E Strike Eagles.
The 1980s-vintage F-15Cs, plagued by structural problems, stayed home in the U.S. and Japan. The brand-new F-22s, built by Lockheed Martin, suffered their own mechanical and safety problems. When they ventured from their home bases in Virginia, Alaska and New Mexico, it was only for short training exercises over the Pacific. The F-15Cs and F-22s sat out last year's Libya war.
The Air Force fixed the F-15s and partially patched up the F-22s just in time for the escalating stand-off over Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program. In March the Air Force deployed the Massachusetts Air National Guard's 104th Fighter Wing, flying 20 standard F-15Cs, to an "undisclosed" air base in Southwest Asia — probably either Al Dhafra in the United Arab Emirates or Al Udeid in Qatar. The highly-experienced Massachusetts Guardsmen, who typically have several years more experience than their active-duty counterparts, would be ready "should Iran test the 104th," said wing commander Col. Robert Brooks.
Upgraded F-15Cs from the 18th Wing in Japan joined the Guard Eagles. The Japan-based fighters have the latest APG-63(V)2 and (V)3 radars, manufactured by Raytheon. They're electronically-scanned radars that radiate many individual beams from fixed antenna clusters and track more targets, faster, than old-model mechanical radars that must physically swivel back and forth. The 18th Wing is working up a fleet of 54 updated Eagles spread across two squadrons. The video above, shot by an F-15 pilot, depicts some of the wing's training.
F-22s followed this month. "Multiple" Raptors deployed to Al Dhafra, according to Amy Butler at Aviation Week. Air Force spokesman Capt. Phil Ventura confirmed the deployment. It's not clear where the Raptors came from. If they're from the Alaska-based 3rd Wing, they're the latest Increment 3.1 model with boosted bombing capabilities in addition to the standard air-to-air weaponry. In any event, the Middle East mission represents the first time F-22s are anywhere near a possible combat zone.
The mix of old and upgraded F-15s and ultra-modern F-22s is no accident. When the Pentagon stopped producing the nearly $400-million-a-copy Raptor after 187 units — half as many as the Air Force said it needed — the flying branch committed to keeping 250 F-15Cs in service until 2025 at the earliest. Pilots began developing team tactics for the two fighter types.
"We have a woefully tiny F-22 fleet," said Gen. Mike Hostage, the Air Force's main fighter commander. So the flying branch worked out a system whereby large numbers of F-15s cover for small numbers of Raptors that sneak in around an enemy's flank in full stealth mode. "Our objective is to fly in front with the F-22s, and have the persistence to stay there while the [F-22s] are conducting their [low-observable] attack," Maj. Todd Giggy, an Eagle pilot, told Aviation Week.
One thing to look for is the presence in the Middle East of one of the Air Force's handful of bizjets and Global Hawk drones fitted with the Northrop Grumman Battlefield Airborne Communications Node, or Bacon. The F-22, once envisioned as a solitary hunter, was designed without the radio data-links that are standard on F-15s and many other jets. Instead, the Raptor has its own unique link that is incompatible with the Eagle. Bacon helps translate the radio signals so the two jet types can swap information. With a Bacon plane nearby, F-22s and F-15s can silently exchange data — for example, stealthy Raptors spotting targets for the Eagles.
It's the methods above that the U.S. dogfighting armada would likely use to wipe out the antiquated but determined Iranian air force if the unthinkable occurred and fighting broke out. The warplanes are in place. The pilots are ready. Hopefully they won't be needed.
Interesting read. Makes you wonder if the Ayatollahs and their ilk read these stories.
QuoteOne thing to look for is the presence in the Middle East of one of the Air Force's handful of bizjets and Global Hawk drones fitted with the Northrop Grumman Battlefield Airborne Communications Node, or Bacon. The F-22, once envisioned as a solitary hunter, was designed without the radio data-links that are standard on F-15s and many other jets. Instead, the Raptor has its own unique link that is incompatible with the Eagle. Bacon helps translate the radio signals so the two jet types can swap information. With a Bacon plane nearby, F-22s and F-15s can silently exchange data — for example, stealthy Raptors spotting targets for the Eagles.
Is there truly
nothing that Bacon cannot do!? Amazing! Also slightly amusing given the locale in question... :D
Quote"We have a woefully tiny F-22 fleet," said Gen. Mike Hostage, the Air Force's main fighter commander. So the flying branch worked out a system whereby large numbers of F-15s cover for small numbers of Raptors that sneak in around an enemy's flank in full stealth mode. "Our objective is to fly in front with the F-22s, and have the persistence to stay there while the [F-22s] are conducting their [low-observable] attack," Maj. Todd Giggy, an Eagle pilot, told Aviation Week.
It's interesting that these are the tactics developed for use of the 22s. It's almost exactly what Tom Clancy described in
Debt of Honor, a novel written in 1994.
BTW, the video that goes along with the Wired article is worth watching.
Quote from: Staggerwing on April 29, 2012, 07:21:46 AM
Is there truly nothing that Bacon cannot do!? Amazing! Also slightly amusing given the locale in question... :D
I had pretty much exactly the same thoughts.
Drones with Bacon. Im sold.
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on April 29, 2012, 02:01:31 PM
Drones with Bacon. Im sold.
I agree.
I also think all the opposition by retired officers and such is just that much smoke and mirrors by the Israelis.
Lastly, I have a date. The new moon in Sept is about the sixteenth. Be there or be square.
Quote from: LongBlade on April 29, 2012, 04:22:06 PM
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on April 29, 2012, 02:01:31 PM
Drones with Bacon. Im sold.
I also think all the opposition by retired officers and such is just that much smoke and mirrors by the Israelis.
I don't think it is smoke and mirrors, but rather people with pretty current knowledge speaking without the constrains of office about their concerns. I do not like Iranian regime, and do not have any ethical, moral or legal concerns about going after them, but without actual Iranian nuclear weapons a limited attack on their facilities may cause more problems IN THE LONG RUN, then it solves. If and when Iran develops a nuke, that is the time to go all out to destroy their regime, not just few facilities, and with very little opposition to military action internationally. It won't be too late, as having a nuke does not mean being able to use it.
Let Mullahs put their heads in the noose and kick the stool from under them, rather then just knock them about and burn the gallows under construction. They can rebuild the gallows, but not when they are swinging from it.
In the meantime sanction, diplomacy, covert operation and support for the opposition aimed at regime change are the best options.
Helping to overthrow Assad in Syria would also help towards that goal.
I do not think there will be an attack this year, but if Israel goes for it they may loose more then they gain.
Bacon-bit cluster bombs. Would that count as a terror weapon? :o
But that case may be tougher to make in the face of derision from men he once trusted to fend off immediate threats like suicide bombers, guerrilla rockets and armed infiltrators."They genuinely disagree and are trying to signal the Israeli public, knowing that they retain credibility," said Dennis Ross, a former Middle East adviser to U.S. President Barack Obama, in reference to Diskin and Mossad ex-spymaster Meir Dagan, another detractor of Netanyahu and Barak."They are raising the costs domestically to the Netanyahu government of acting."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/30/us-iran-nuclear-israel-idUSBRE83T0RV20120430 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/30/us-iran-nuclear-israel-idUSBRE83T0RV20120430)
My take is they dont want to take the fallout, they want to push the US to do something first.
If the US goes to act it is not Iran that is the problem it is Russia and China. From their perspective they fear increasing western influence so they will back the freaks Iran and NK. Russia has already stepped in to back Syria which is really about blocking the west. My guess for a worst case scenario is if the US Navy launches an attack a sub south of the fleet unloads everything at the capital ships. Then the sub is hunted down as a mad dog with a brain tumored captain. Deniability that stops western advance in the middle east. It stops 'encirclement' from their perspective.
If Russia feels really threatened by the regime changes in that region taking out a fleet would be their re-balancing. The war games have to factor in the moves of the 3 superpowers.
Latest news.
I think they'll do it in September, but they might hold until October.
QuoteIsrael's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is calling early elections so that he and his government will be free to deal with Iran's nuclear program this September-October, one of Israel's best-informed political commentators said on Friday night.
Source: http://www.timesofisrael.com/tv-report-netanyahu-holding-elections-so-he-is-free-to-deal-with-iran-in-september-october/
I wonder how willing obama might be to wag the dog's tail in sept/october if the election is not going his way.
Quote from: meadbelly on May 04, 2012, 09:30:57 PM
I wonder how willing obama might be to wag the dog's tail in sept/october if the election is not going his way.
It's not in his interest to see Israel pound on Iran - the Iranians will attempt to close the Straight of Hormuz, spiking the price of gas.
IMHO this is exactly why Israel will strike. Obama has done very little to smooth the road for Israel; they're about to return the favor.
It sounds a bit far fetched to me to say Israel will go to war to influence a US election.
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on May 05, 2012, 09:32:44 PM
It sounds a bit far fetched to me to say Israel will go to war to influence a US election.
That won't be the main reason the Israelis will hit Iran, no...but will be a nice side bonus for them.
Quote from: Martok on May 06, 2012, 12:54:18 AM
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on May 05, 2012, 09:32:44 PM
It sounds a bit far fetched to me to say Israel will go to war to influence a US election.
That won't be the main reason the Israelis will hit Iran, no...but will be a nice side bonus for them.
+1
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on May 05, 2012, 09:32:44 PM
It sounds a bit far fetched to me to say Israel will go to war to influence a US election.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffiles.sharenator.com%2Fgodzilla_facepalm_godzilla_facepalm_Facepalm_collection-s640x387-82177-580.jpg&hash=d0d006a5d2ad746a17f4b55a11d78b7c185184e5)
Quote from: Windigo on May 07, 2012, 12:17:16 PM
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on May 05, 2012, 09:32:44 PM
It sounds a bit far fetched to me to say Israel will go to war to influence a US election.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffiles.sharenator.com%2Fgodzilla_facepalm_godzilla_facepalm_Facepalm_collection-s640x387-82177-580.jpg&hash=d0d006a5d2ad746a17f4b55a11d78b7c185184e5)
You missed my point: The Israelis are going anyway. The timing is just icing on the cake.
Quote from: LongBlade on May 07, 2012, 03:00:30 PM
You missed my point: The Israelis are going anyway. The timing is just icing on the cake.
Exactly. They might as well try to kill as many birds with one stone as possible.
My purely hypothetical -- and admittedly not particularly well-thought out -- tail wagging has the US conducting strikes not the israelis. It's a considerable stretch to even get to a point where it's plausible, but I would have said the same thing before obama starting really fucking with the notion that he's no less willing to impose a far left ideology than some portions of the right wing are willing to impose a far right ideology.
So here are the considerable stretches:
1) Obama is losing the election. Not sure if losing big or losing small but still obviously losing.
2) He's losing primarily because the economy is in decline. Maybe not recession but moving in that direction. Like assuming the last couple of months are the beginning of a decline that steepens and deepens into Aug/Sept/Oct.
3) Obama begins a calculus that suggests he'll gain more independents than lose an anti-war base in an armed conflict with iran. Closing the Hormuz Straits possibly plays into this, especially if the closure by the iranians can be viewed as an escalation of hostilities. US operations consist almost exclusively of an air campaign, with standoff naval actions to clear the Straits and possible small unit marine/special forces activities.
For the proponents of an independent israeli strike, I'm curious what you think regarding some of the conventional analysis. In particular, do you agree that the israelis lack the infrastructure for a sustained bombing campaign through the likely air corridors? Do you agree that more than one strike would be necessary to have a significant impact on the iranian program? Alternatively, do you think israeli would risk a military strike for primarily pr value at home (in other words, they strike once not to impact the program primarily.)
If the israelis are as po'd at the us as they may very well be, why wouldn't they risk over flight of Iraq. Or is the northern route plausible more for a surprise factor?
If the israelis do strike in sept/oct, I'm not sure how much that effects the us election adversely for obama. It potentially solidifies some of the independents who might decide a "stay the course" mentality from my hypothetical above. I don't think it persuades many hawks to finally abandon obama -- this is not an area he's drawn a lot of strength from. Romney would have an interest time trying to pitch the idea he could have prevented it from happening.
There will of course be a lot of finger pointing and posturing from either side, but that's nothing new. And I'm not sure how it breaks clearly for Romney in that independent vote.
Quote from: LongBlade on May 07, 2012, 03:00:30 PM
Quote from: Windigo on May 07, 2012, 12:17:16 PM
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on May 05, 2012, 09:32:44 PM
It sounds a bit far fetched to me to say Israel will go to war to influence a US election.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffiles.sharenator.com%2Fgodzilla_facepalm_godzilla_facepalm_Facepalm_collection-s640x387-82177-580.jpg&hash=d0d006a5d2ad746a17f4b55a11d78b7c185184e5)
You missed my point: The Israelis are going anyway. The timing is just icing on the cake.
The petrol prices are falling, the economy is improving (slowly), Iran does not yet have a nuke. In those circumstances Israeli strike, which forces petrol prices back up may have an effect of making Israel less popular in the US, rather then Obama. Israel should be mindful not to bite the hand that feeds it.
Quote from: pawelj on May 10, 2012, 07:37:27 AM
The petrol prices are falling, the economy is improving (slowly), Iran does not yet have a nuke. In those circumstances Israeli strike, which forces petrol prices back up may have an effect of making Israel less popular in the US, rather then Obama. Israel should be mindful not to bite the hand that feeds it.
Good point. Fuel prices have been falling more recently.
But fuel prices aren't the problem - an Iranian nuke is. Israel isn't in this as a popularity contest. When Iran fails to allow sufficient inspections to verify they have no nuke program this will be a done deal. I'm calling September, but it'll be October at the latest.
Quote from: LongBlade on May 10, 2012, 08:31:04 AM
Good point. Fuel prices have been falling more recently.
But fuel prices aren't the problem - an Iranian nuke is. Israel isn't in this as a popularity contest. When Iran fails to allow sufficient inspections to verify they have no nuke program this will be a done deal. I'm calling September, but it'll be October at the latest.
Iran does not yet have a nuke. And between the time of having one and being able to use it, is the time when a major, regime changing can of woop-ass should be unleashed by everyone, not just Israel.
Israeli action before Iran has the nuke will not be effective enough and thus counterproductive in the long run.
I'd like to think there's still hope for peace: http://imgur.com/eCbcn