US fears Israel would not advise it in advance if it strikes Iran

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by 1480

I am sure they will not consult with the current administration. Just a hunch.

To be honest, I don't think Israel would consult with any administration.

I don't understand why this is causing such a seemingly shocked reaction - it's common practice for Israel to mind its own security without looking for anyone's permission. They do not take the issue lightly, but if you look at historical precedents, Israel doesn't talk. They may listen when approached, but when there's a perceived need to act, they'll hit first and discuss later. No questions asked.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by CCIP

To be honest, I don't think Israel would consult with any administration.

I don't understand why this is causing such a seemingly shocked reaction - it's common practice for Israel to mind its own security without looking for anyone's permission. They do not take the issue lightly, but if you look at historical precedents, Israel doesn't talk. They may listen when approached, but when there's a perceived need to act, they'll hit first and discuss later. No questions asked.

I agree

[STEED]

Originally Posted by CCIP

To be honest, I don't think Israel would consult with any administration.

I don't understand why this is causing such a seemingly shocked reaction - it's common practice for Israel to mind its own security without looking for anyone's permission. They do not take the issue lightly, but if you look at historical precedents, Israel doesn't talk. They may listen when approached, but when there's a perceived need to act, they'll hit first and discuss later. No questions asked.

There not going to risk the chance that Iran would not use it, as you say CCIP they will knock out the threat.

[Oberon]

IIRC the Saudis gave the nod a few years back to let Israel overfly their airspace to hit Iran, so that's an option...but yeah, the first we'll know about it is when Iran starts screaming blue murder. Heck, I think the Pentagon's first warning will be the newsflash on CNN

[Jimbuna]

I've no doubt the US will pick up the IAF via satellite the minute they're airborne but won't advise anyone of the fact.

[1480]

Originally Posted by CCIP

To be honest, I don't think Israel would consult with any administration.

I don't understand why this is causing such a seemingly shocked reaction - it's common practice for Israel to mind its own security without looking for anyone's permission. They do not take the issue lightly, but if you look at historical precedents, Israel doesn't talk. They may listen when approached, but when there's a perceived need to act, they'll hit first and discuss later. No questions asked.

The American President, George Bush, issued an appeal to Israel to hold back from retaliation for the attack.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/4588486.stm

39 Scud missiles were fired into Israel by Iraq during the Gulf war. Israel agreed with the US to not retaliate. I think we owe them a big one.

Security being protecting their borders. No country should have to ask for permission to do so. But we are talking about a preemptive strike against a sovereign nation. Apples and oranges.

It will also be interesting times for Israeli'S ground army and riot police: Gaza/Hamas, Lebanon/Hezbollah, internal riots, and a no longer safe Egyptian border. Just Syria, for the time being, seems to be taken out of the equation.

@skybird: looks like syria is back in play.

"We expect and recommend that everyone keep the current calm but as we've said, the introduction of systems that disturb the balance endanger the stability and the calm, he said.
The United States said the move would have a possible "destabilizing effect" on the region. The presence of more advanced missiles in Lebanon could raise the prospects of a pre-emptive strike by Israel.
Hezbollah is on the U.S. terrorism blacklist, but is part of Lebanon's unity government.
The Lebanese government has had no comment on the U.S. allegations. But Hezbollah lawmaker Hassan Fadlallah said the comments made by the White House were interference.
"This American interference that has completely adopted the Israeli position, is condemned and rejected by Lebanon. This U.S. position presents a threat to Lebanon," Fadlallah said.
"These American pressures and Israeli intimidation will not affect our choices and our commitment to defend our country by all means," Fadlallah told Reuters.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/syria-is...ttack-1.284315

Another month from now, the entire Arab world will think they will be Israel's next preemptive strike target. Either Israel is all that and a slice of cheese or we are getting a hint that Arab countries may band together to attack Israel.

Originally Posted by CCIP

To be honest, I don't think Israel would consult with any administration.

I don't understand why this is causing such a seemingly shocked reaction - it's common practice for Israel to mind its own security without looking for anyone's permission. They do not take the issue lightly, but if you look at historical precedents, Israel doesn't talk. They may listen when approached, but when there's a perceived need to act, they'll hit first and discuss later. No questions asked.

Seems to be the case.

[Skybird]

If Israel attacks Iran, it will do so with the silent support and sympathy of many Arab countries, especially Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Katar.

The only real victim in the field of diplomacy with Muslim neighbours and countries in the area, will be the relations between Turkey and Israel. On the other hand: what else is left in these relations that still could get broken?

[soopaman2]

Originally Posted by Skybird

If Israel attacks Iran, it will do so with the silent support and sympathy of many Arab countries, especially Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Katar.


The only real victim in the field of diplomacy with Muslim neighbours and countries in the area, will be the relations between Turkey and Israel. On the other hand: what else is left in these relations that still could get broken?

I will have to agree.

There are many arab countries, who see the big picture, and realize it is better to take our money and goodwill (trade, good relations, alliances etc) than to outright alienate the west (as a whole) with extremism.


I have a theory but nothing to back it up besides circumstantial evidence, that anti US sentiment tides from most countries with Chinese and Russian support. It just seems to be that any country that China, and Russia likes, seems to hate the US. (cold war over my backside)

It would be better to address the disease and not the symptoms, but that would be called WW3.

[1480]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

I will have to agree.

There are many arab countries, who see the big picture, and realize it is better to take our money and goodwill (trade, good relations, alliances etc) than to outright alienate the west (as a whole) with extremism.


I have a theory but nothing to back it up besides circumstantial evidence, that anti US sentiment tides from most countries with Chinese and Russian support. It just seems to be that any country that China, and Russia likes, seems to hate the US. (cold war over my backside)

It would be better to address the disease and not the symptoms, but that would be called WW3.

Had this been two years ago, I would readily agree. I am a bit reluctant with all of the regime change that happened this past year.

[Skybird]

No regimen change in Saudi Arabia and Katar, military regime still somewhat in control of Egypt.

Anyhow. The bigger picture is not regime changes, or the Palestinian problem, but the old civil war between Sunni Arabs and Shia Persians, and the rivalry of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, Egypt (and to some degree also Katar) for a dominant position in the region.

Iran has no allies there. Nobody would shed a tear over them.

[mapuc]

I have ret the Article* and that made me think

Could it be that it will be a joint operation,??

1. The US take care of the iranian defenses and other thing

2. Israel take care of the nuclear facilities a.s.o
( I had it on my tongue, but it disappeared)

Markus

Note
I know that I have recently red in some article, that there should be some
joint execise USA and Israel.

[1480]

Originally Posted by Skybird

No regimen change in Saudi Arabia and Katar, military regime still somewhat in control of Egypt.

Anyhow. The bigger picture is not regime changes, or the Palestinian problem, but the old civil war between Sunni Arabs and Shia Persians, and the rivalry of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, Egypt (and to some degree also Katar) for a dominant position in the region.

Iran has no allies there. Nobody would shed a tear over them.

S A is into one thing and one thing only: MONEY.

[Skybird]

Superb:

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition...-iran-1.394117

It's impossible to take a serious position on the matter without full knowledge of the facts.

By Yehezkel Dror

In terms of democratic principles, the public debate over a prospective Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities is justified, as long as it doesn't cause Israel diplomatic damage or require revealing secret information. But the current debate is actually a ritualized and pointless endeavor.

In effect, it's impossible to take a serious position on the matter without full knowledge of the facts. It's important to know the stance taken by countries that are important to Israel, as well as the intelligence assessment and operational options. Thus the only conclusion that can be drawn from public opinion polls asking whether people would support or oppose an Israeli attack is that the Israeli public discourse on the issue is a superficial one. The only proper response is: "I don't have the necessary information to express an opinion."

The fact that this public debate is so insubstantial also affects the statements made by former high-ranking security officials. In theory, they have the right, and even the obligation, to publicly share their opinions on such an important matter, if it's possible to do so without revealing confidential information or damaging Israel's security or foreign affairs. That's the case for a substantive public debate that could influence the decisions being made. On the other hand, there's nothing to be gained from having former high-ranking officials announce what they think about a given issue if it's just a ritualized debate. It would be better for them to try to influence the genuine decision-makers from the inside rather than make a lot of noise in the public arena.

For a closer look at the distinction between substantive and non-substantive public discourse, we can compare the Iranian issue with one that is no less important: the peace process. Decisions relating to how worthwhile it is for Israel to give up parts of Judea and Samaria and divide Jerusalem in exchange for peace agreements are fitting for public debate, as are decisions relating to whether it is right to focus on relations with the Palestinians or whether it would be better to pursue a comprehensive regional peace. It is important to debate such questions. Although there are complicated security considerations involved in the peace process too, one cannot compare the level of secrecy needed in that case to the level of secrecy needed regarding anything connected to Iran. On the peace process, then, former senior political and security officials should indeed be stating publicly what they think and why, thus contributing to a serious public debate.

A public debate on the peace process, and the associated values, can and should affect a national referendum on the issue, as well as Knesset votes and cabinet resolutions. That makes it an essential debate, unlike discussion of an Israeli attack in Iran. Unlike with the peace process, Israel's leaders must - in accordance with the principles of representative democracy and based on the specific characteristics of the Iran issue - make a decision on a prospective Israeli attack on Iran to the best of their judgment, without taking into consideration the media, public discourse or party politics.

I am inclined to estimate that not more than 10 or 15 people in all of Israel know all the varied information that is essential for a level-headed decision on the Iranian issue, including the prime minister, defense minister and two or three advisers and professionals. This leads me to a difficult but unavoidable conclusion: History is presenting Israel with a critical challenge in which the very few are likely to greatly affect the future of very many. Such a situation is not desirable from the perspective of democratic values, and it also entails some danger. Such situations are rare, but they are not unique in history, especially in light of weapons of mass destruction. (Just recall U.S. President John F. Kennedy's response to the deployment of Soviet missiles in Cuba. )

Fortunately, notwithstanding all the justified criticism of this country's leaders on issues like the peace process and the social welfare policy, there is no doubt about their total commitment to Israel's security, expertise in the Iranian issue and reasoning ability. In any case, the decision is necessarily in their hands. One can only hope that the public debate, which will certainly not help matters, will at least do no harm.

Good to get reminded of these essential thoughts.

[Skybird]

IAEA says Iran is on the treshold of nuclear weapons capability. Also, they had massive foreign assistance, from Russia. Iran is said to gain nuclear weapon capability "within months". Some German media wonder meanwhile if Gaddafi's centrifuges have gone directly to Iran.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...y.html?hpid=z1

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-e...-says-1.394162