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

[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.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by 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)

So far it is not more than talkin g and sabre-rattling, as far as we can tell. Even the Israeli government is split.

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

This thread, post #1.

And: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomac...story-1.393878


---


Israeli websites of Shin Bet, IDF, Mossad, government are down. Hacker attacks are claimed by Anonymous who has threatened such attacks as revenge for stopping the two boats to Gaza recently. Israeli government denies, saying it is just a web malfunction.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Skybird

So far it is not more than talkin g and sabre-rattling, as far as we can tell. Even the Israeli government is split.



This thread, post #1.

And: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomac...story-1.393878


---


Israeli websites of Shin Bet, IDF, Mossad, government are down. Hacker attacks are claimed by Anonymous who has threatened such attacks as revenge for stopping the two boats to Gaza recently. Israeli government denies, saying it is just a web malfunction.

The israel and the Knesset is divoted, not if Iran is a threat to Israel, but in how to handle it.

Thank you-I knew I had red it somewhere.

I'm also thinking what the response would be, among the common people on the street in middle east , if USA is the one of the attackers.

USA is one of the most hatred country in that area(that what I have been told)

Can Israel pull all this by itself? I doubt. It's not just a singel factory or a nuclear facility.

Markus

[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

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Some German media wonder meanwhile if Gaddafi's centrifuges have gone directly to Libya.

Don't you mean Iran?

[CaptainHaplo]

Israel does not need to destroy Iran's nuclear program - they simply have to do what they have done in the past - knock it back a ways.

Destroy enrichment/storage facilities and the trigger research location. You take out the eggheads with the knowhow to build a nuke, you cause a lot of delay.

Enrichment has been under attack for a good long while - remember stuxnet?

Iran wants to brag about how its facilities are underground and safe.
Israel has had access to Durandals for decades, and there are plenty of other and better groundbreakers now if it needs them.

A few hour operation targeting maybe 3-5 sites would set the Iranians back 5-10 years.

Israel will let the US know once the first pickle is squeezed. The Iranians will know first - the US second - and the rest of the world shortly after on the news channels.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

Don't you mean Iran?

Oh, eh - yes.

Corrected.

[Skybird]

[QUOTE=CaptainHaplo;1782515]Israel does not need to destroy Iran's nuclear program - they simply have to do what they have done in the past - knock it back a ways.

Destroy enrichment/storage facilities and the trigger research location. You take out the eggheads with the knowhow to build a nuke, you cause a lot of delay. [/quoite]

War after war after war? No thanks, not with me. Over the distance this causes more death (and probbaly also financial costs to Israel, the US, the UK!!!) than one detemrtioned effort. Strike and break them, or stay at home.

Enrichment has been under attack for a good long while - remember stuxnet?

Stuxnet'S delay was shorter than expected, and just two weeks or so ago it was reported that they are surprised how fast the Iranians recovered, that nbow they enrich faster than ever bewfore, and have gained more material than was thought possible.

Iran wants to brag about how its facilities are underground and safe.
Israel has had access to Durandals for decades, and there are plenty of other and better groundbreakers now if it needs them.

Durandals are runway, not bunker busters. Iranian bunkers' precise locations (entries, ventilator openings) often are unknown to allow preicse targetting of vulnerable spots, which leads to the problem I repeatedly have pointed at: if you have a perimeter of lets say 10x15 km and know there is somehwere a hidden factory 20 m eters below the ground, protected by hardened steelconcrete, and potentially vulnerable points loike entries are unknown for porecise warhead coordinate programming, then you have a problem and would need to cluster-bomb that whole oplerimeter to maintain at least the chance to do at least some damage to the ceiling of said instakllation - and we do not tall about destroying it. When they manage to move just small but sufficient ammounts of matwerial into mountain bunkers where intel knowsd even less about - then you as the attacker attacking blindly effectivly can fold, for then it is game over for you.

The program's installations must be destroyed in all it'S ~300 installations and places. Not just delayed, and in three years or so we again are were we are today. Stuxnet has not worked as intended. The targetted assassination of key personnel of the developement has not worked. Doing limited damage and leave it to that, will not work.

If you go there, go all the way. Do not take a florett or a skeleton key with you, but use a two-handed sledgehammer and a truckload of dynamite - and make sure you have plenty more in supply and on its way to the head of your column.

Do not try to repeat the botch of 2002, '03 and '06.

[Krauter]

Go big or go home.