« National Journal Blog, 4 May 2009 | Main | Al-Maliki and the "Odierno Amendment" »

05 May 2009

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Homer

Highlander: The Iranians leadership consists of a bunch of muslim religious zealots.

Ok and to whom is the Iraqi leadership (Maliki, Hakim, et al) loyal to?

Hint: Not the US; and especially not Israel, as well all know

Answer: The Iraqi leadership is loyal to `The Iranians leadership [which] consists of a bunch of muslim religious zealots.'

Saddening, sickening, and frustrating to know that the Iraqi leadership (Maliki, Hakim, et al) is based upon the deaths of so many Americans who also happened to finance their empowerment, paid to equip their army, etc.

Israeli religious zealots and the Bushies sure did a heckuva job!!

Babak Makkinejad

Mac Nayeri:

True if we had not entered a religious war.

Homer

As usual ... its ALL about the Israelis:


Israel would inform, not ask U.S. before hitting Iran

[snip]

Israel would want to ensure that its jets would not be shot down by accident if overflying U.S.-occupied Iraq, and to give Americans in the Gulf forewarning of possible Iranian reprisals.


http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE54523R20090506

J

I say blow any Israeli jets who dare to intrude on Iraqi/U.S. airspace, out of the sky, no exceptions. Lock=n=load.

Remember that Israel is currently trying its best to acquire 3 U.S. made E3s, and they have been greasing the skids of the U.S. Congress to do it.

I would love to see the shock=n=awe expressions on the Israeli pilots (just before they auger into the dirt) who are stupid enough to try and attack Iran, they're in for a few surprises/rude awakenings.

J

Well shucks, heck-e-darn, I made a foopaw, I dared to criticize Israel, therefore I'm ant-Semitic according to a 'law' that Mr. Bush signed into law on Oct. 16 04. So are you legally anti-Semitic?

According to this 'law' some of the following sets of beliefs are determined as being anti-Semitic.:

Any strong anti-Israel sentiments is -- anti-Semitic.

Virulent criticism of Israel's leaders (ya know their War Criminals), past or present is -- anti-Semitic.

Criticism of the U.S. government and Congress for being under influences of AIPAC, is -- anti-Semitic.

Calling Israel a racist state is -- anti-Semitic.


http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/globalantisemtext.html

William P. Fitzgerald III

Pat Lang,

Should such an attack be launched, it would be an act of war with no casus belli, very like Pearl Harbor. Iran could have no other course than to declare war. The combatants would then be in the position of being unable to come to grips with each other on the ground and lack the means to wage decisive long range (strategic) combat. Thus, I would conclude that it would be a lengthy affair, with both sides employing proxies and other indirect means.

In a proxy-war, Iran would appear to have the advantage,particularly if outrage in the Middle East would be as wide, deep, and sincere as most suppose it would be. The consequences could be severe for Israel, border warfare, diplomatic isolation, boycotts, embargoes and a collapse of the moderate Arab/Turkey group as a buffer and moderating influence.

Israel can have only one proxy with forces near Iran and that proxy is, (the envelope please) is, What a surprise!, us. The other, but related Israeli asset is the powerful, resourceful, never-sleeping, with friends in very high places, Lobby. I have to believe that the Lobby's influence would rapidly wane or, perhaps, diappear like a puff of smoke. As for America engaging Iran on her borders or in the Gulf, I suspect that we might decline to do so.

Another problem for us, should the attack take place, is that unless we actively and openly forbid and take measures to prevent it, we shall be seen to be the accomplices of our "ally", as we were in 1973, Lebanons I and II, the Intifadas, and the Gaza atrocities.

In the end, I find it hard to believe that they will actually do it.

WPFIII

arbogast

Pakistan.

Pakistan is not terribly stable right now. Wouldn't an Israeli nuclear attack on its western borders (prevailing winds are west to east) destabilize it further?

Oh, and the other country bordering Iran on the east is...the envelope please...Afghanistan.

Gosh, I guess the Israeli's are really sure about the possibility of fall-out from those bunker busters.

"Mr. President, the Israeli's assured us there would be no fall-out in Afghanistan. It was an honest mistake."

johnf

Let me run this up the flagpole and see what reaction it gets.

Only a week or so til Netanyahu and Obama meet in the White House. A very big meeting. Both sides have been putting on the pressure.

Netanyahu has been pushing Congress and all of Washington hard through AIPAC and the hundreds of delegates going out from there to lobby their representatives. Israel has also been pushing very hard on Iran - hardly a day goes by without threats to bomb Iran. They've also been playing Dennis Ross whose been saying that the Egyptians and the Arabs in general have become very worried about Iran's nuclear ambitions. (Comments directly contradicted by other newspaper reports saying the Egyptians et al aren't at all worried by this).

On the American side they've been playing Under Secretary of State Gottemoeller's statements about all of the Middle East's nuclear powers - including Israel - having to abide by NPT rules. But mainly they've been pushing the need for a peace settlement between Israel and Palestine, with a two state solution. Positions fairly different from those taken by Israel's new leaders.

Various accounts of personnal skirmishing have also been raked up - suspected Israeli spies not allowed into the room with Clinton, the Clinton's and Emmanuel's personal stand-offs with Netanyahu back in the 90's.

But what is really on the table here? What do the two sides really want? Is the endless Israeli threat to attack Iran merely a counter to any serious deal with the Palestinians? Is Obama, mainly because of the Israeli Lobby inside the US, largely impotent in his dealings with Netanyahu?

What's the state of play as we go into the last week?

Bill Wade, NH, USA

President Obama should tell Bibi that there's not to be an attack in any way, shape, or form - end of discussion. And, if they do attack against our advice, that we, the United States, will lead the global effort to isolate them diplomatically and financially.

Andy

J, you said:

I would love to see the shock=n=awe expressions on the Israeli pilots (just before they auger into the dirt) who are stupid enough to try and attack Iran, they're in for a few surprises/rude awakenings.

Is that kind of comment really necessary? Glee at the prospect of killing those who would implement a policy you don't like does not exactly cast you in a positive light - especially since you're not the one who will do the killing.

rjj

arbogast: according to stuff in print, winds depend on season.

Vile Whig

The Israelis will soon learn, if they haven't already, that they are not dealing with an Administration of easily manipulated, swaggering idiots, as they were with Bush & Co. Whether the current Israeli gov't is smart enough and capable enough to adapt to the new reality is debatable.

Leila Abu-Saba

JohnF wrote "Is the endless Israeli threat to attack Iran merely a counter to any serious deal with the Palestinians?"

If I were going to place a poker chip on one of the options, that's the one I'd pick.

MRW.

Highlander,

Nice didn't get the Jews 3,000 years of survival, being realistic did.

Oh, please. Enough with this BS. The Egyptians have survived much longer and they dont resort to occupation and pre-emptive warmongering. Sixty years has proven to me that maybe the Israelis dont deserve what the British Mandate ultimately gave them because they dont have the maturity to change or take responsibility for an inch of their demise.

Jimbo

We have seen rumours of an IDF strike on Iran for years now.

At the same time, anybody with half a brain knows that the end result would be a closure of the Persian Gulf, another crippling blow to the world economy, and massive popular unrest against Israel, which of course, at some point in time, will add up to actual censure and sanctions, if not more.

So a strike on Iran, would be mad.

So, are the Israeli's running a Nixon?

If the Israeli's are running a Nixon, (pretend to be a mad dog with nukes to intimidate an opponent and gain concessions), it does not appear, from the timing of the recent "attack" leaks, or the previous ones, that the target of the Nixon Strategy is Iran.

It would appear very much that the goal of the "Information Operations" is to influence and gain concessions from the US.

J

Andy,

I take no glee in any death of any kind. A human death is a loss to all of mankind. The 'expression' I'm talking about is that those IDF pilots will realize that they were being played for fools by their leadership back in Tel Aviv/Jerusalem as expendible mere pawns in Tel Aviv/Jerusalem's mad lust for domination and power.

And as for the IDF, they did not hesitate to murder U.S. military personnel on the USS Liberty, and the Israeli Mossad had no hesitation in intentionally withholding critical life-saving Intel of the pending Beriut Barracks Bombing that cost over 200 U.S. Marines their lives.

I have no pity for any IDF or Mossad bloke that bites the dust, as I view them in the same light as Al-Qaeda, they both have intentionally shed American blood!

Israel has proven they are an enemy to my U.S. and those I love!!!

Rider

The Israelis have begun to sense that things are no longer like they were in the good old days:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=1083998

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

April 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30    
Blog powered by Typepad