Biden indicates US will not hold back Israel if it strikes Iran
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8135414.stm

Another step down that certain road...

Nor should we hold Israel back. They are the only country in the region that keeps radicals in check. Good for them and that is about the most intelligent thing I've heard com out of Biden's mouth! :up::up::up:

-S

Interesting. I wonder if this stance was at all influenced by public outcry over U.S. condemnation of Israel's last anti-nuclear strike back in 81'.


I admit, I'm still a little torn over whether or not the U.S should back Israel. On the one hand, I'd love to see a Western-backed power establish dominance in the region. Islam has been a thorn in the side of the west for thousands of years, and I see little reason to believe that they will curb their policy of militaristic expansion anytime soon.
On the other, I wonder whether it is any of our business. U.S. interference in the region pre-dates terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and interests by quite a bit. Perhaps we should leave well enough alone. That's Europe's backyard, not ours.

Ideally, I'd like to see peace in the region and the establishment of less oppressive governments, but failing that I wouldn't mind seeing the region tear itself to pieces. Perhaps that is what is needed. My only caveat is that the U.S. must not be involved. Our intervention has been less than welcome on a number of occassions, so we have nothing to gain from acting on behalf of other nations.
Such a policy would leave Israel on her own in the region, and I feel badly about that, but the U.S. did not create Israel out of thin air(to the chargrin of Palestine, which had been there for two millenia), nor was it responisible for the division of the Ottoman Empire along arbitrary lines. That was Europe's doing, in Europe's backyard, and the problem is Europe's responsibility. I leave it to them to sort out the rest of the matter amongst their constituent nations.

Which is the better course of action at this point? Is there another, more reasonable course? I don't know, but I do know that just as some in the old world may be tired of our interference, we are tired of interfering. We should have heeded Jefferson's advice and remained neutral from the very beginning.

I really hope Biden is just talking here.

Saying we're not going to restrain Israel isn't a bad idea - in fact it's some nice strategic ambiguity. It will help keep the Iranians nervous.

But airstrikes against Iran, regardless of who launches them, are a bad idea. The simple reason is that airstrikes alone cannot finish the job on Iran's nuclear program. The Iranians have basically built their program from scratch. Anything that is destroyed in an airstrike, they can rebuild. The Iranian nuclear program is much further along than the Iraqi program was when the Israelis knocked out their reactor in 1981.

The one and only way to stop Iran's nuclear program through force would be to invade the country and occupy the sites. That simply isn't going to happen.

Ineffective half-measures like airstrikes would simply radicalize Iran and make them more likely to seek nuclear weapons, and fire them once they have them.

It's also worth pointing out that we have no proof that Iran is actually developing nucelar weapons. The evidence for the program is surprisingly weak. A couple months ago I had to prepare an argument to show that Iran was trying to build nukes, and I was utterly dismayed at the total lack of hard evidence. The evidence that Iraq was stockpiling WMD was much stronger than this.

All you have to know is if they have centrifuges.

Israel will ultimately act in the manner that best suits them. If they feel their existence is threatened by an Iranian nuke, they will act to stop it, whether the yanks approve of it or not.

To max, I know what you mean about lack of evidence. However, the Syrians were able to go a long way to constructing a plant, how far along was it before it was discovered? in a country the size of Iran, we simply couldn't find it if they truly wanted to hide evidence.

My fear is that the first notice we'll have they've built a nuke is a "test" in either tel aviv or some other western nation.

Why do you say that?

Saudi Arabia seems to have given permission to Israeli strike to transit through Saudi air space.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6638568.ece

This is the first time ever that I think the strike scenario is about to turn true indeed. The right figures are in the right place: it seems to me White's figures are on the intended starting squares, the player has made up his mind (the current Isaelis givernment being there, and no other), and Black has allowed his position to send a message of inviting an attack - when it opressed the opposition, saying that it will not give up the match for power peacefully.

Whether White'S attack plan could work or not, remains to be seen. As I often said, I am sceptical that if the mission objective is to really destroy the Iranian program, that could be acchieved without using nukes, whereas a conventional raid, without special forces taking out vital places on the ground manually, could hardly acchieve anything more than just some delays (as long as their intel basis has not dramatically improved with regard to precise target coordinates. Two years ago, these data on Iranian precise coordinates were simply lacking, it was said). Which would mean there would be a repetition of events some time later.

A half-hearted solution by the Israelis I will not support, they dissapointed twice in the past three years, making me u-turning on my initial support for them at both occasions. I will not make that mistake a third time. Since it is unlikely that they will go the tough way, I must express my opposition to this scenario then - as long as their conventional strike does not prove to be such that it kills the Iranian program for sure. Launching such an action just for delaying them, I will not support.

Well, didn't Iran tell the US to stop meddling in their affairs. :hmmm: Since this is an affair between Israel and Iran, no meddling from the US per Biden. :salute:

No. Iran told us to stop meddling in their domestic affairs. Israel attacking Iran would hardly be an Israeli domestic issue. Such an attack would greatly harm American national security, therefore the US needs to make sure such an attack doesn't happen.

And if you think centrifuges are all we need to know about, you've got no idea of how Iran's nuclear program works.

I suggest that people here read How to Build a Nuclear Bomb by Frank Barnaby. It's a good technical summary of the world of WMD, and it's accessible to people without a scientific background. It's also fun to see how people react to you when you read it in a public place like a subway or an airport. ;)

Don't meddle in their domestic affairs??????? That is laugh. You think they want the US to meddle in this affair with Israel? Come on, they do not want the US around for anything. The US could fall off the face of the earth for all Iran cares.

According to diplomatic protocol, nations are not supposed to intervene in each others' domestic affairs. An act of war by one nation on another is not a domestic issue, therefore an intervention by a third power is not a violation of diplomatic protocol.

I really don't give a sh*t about what Iran wants, I'm just concerned with doing what's right for the US, and in this case it's VERY clear that what's right for the US is to prevent Israel from attacking.

Without knowing the Iranian's current defense posture, or real, not imagined capabilities, with all the turmoil following the elections there, now may be a good time for a strike.

Or, a slow but steady increase in forces along the Pakistani/Iranian border. There are also many US troops out of iraqi cities which could be slowly moved towards Iran. Helmand province in Afghanistan is also w/in 200KM if the Iranian border.

I think that this may not be a big deal. To me, this is a type of indirect sabre-rattling. Biden, in effect, was indicating that the US could would not be held responsible for what happens should the Iranians continue their nuclear program, kind of a 'see what'll happen' without a deliberate threat. Tehran will retort and we'll be back to where we've been for the past few years.

CastleBravo, I assume you mean the Afghan/Iranian or Iraqi/Iranian borders. Placing 10,000 US troops in Pakisan is probably not realistic.

You are correct Pakistani troops on that side, not US troops. The US troops can come from Iraq and to a lesser degree, currently, Afghanistan.

Israel will strike from other areas. The idea is to overwhelm Iranian defenses.