« "Karzai wants U.S. to reduce military operations in Afghanistan" Partlow | Main | What a deal! »

14 November 2010


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

Norbert M. Salamon

Were this insane attack to take place, it will be time to say the Requirem Massw for Uncle Sam, else USA Air Force and USA Navy plaqnes must stop this tep to WWIII.


Time to put up or shut up. That goes for the French too.

We need to blow them both out of the sky as the approach Iran and mark our territory in the Middle East if we want our efforts and lives lost in Afghanistan or Iraq to mean a damn thing.


This puts Cantor's treasonous comments in a whole new light...One thing I don't understand is, other than ego, what is France's interest in starting a new M.E. conflagration? Is Sarkozy so dumb that he would support a crazy scheme like this just to spite Merkel? I don't get it.


The Iran attack has been on for years now, must be propaganda.

But, otoh, if they go for it, given French and British involvement, we won't have to perform the janitorial duties after the SHTF.


hhhhmmm...There is always the possibility that Israel is pulling a Sadat maneuver. Between 1970-73 Anwar Sadat warned about war with Israel so often that no one took him seriously anymore and the signs of war preparation pre October 1973 were missed.

Anything in the public sphere has to be taken as disinformation of some kind. That doesn't mean there will be no attack. Maybe the disinfo is that there is disagreement in the IDF when in fact everyone is on board.

Some of the things that sound odd, though are,

1)"The French will provide top of the line jets to Israel for these operations. The French are also going to provide mid-air refueling for the dozen planes (backed by 250 aircraft altogether) that will carry out the bombing raid."

The French have better jets than those the US provides Israel? And France will actively participate in an act of war against Iran while they have troops in Afghanistan and Sarkozy's approval rating is 30%? Unless those stories of him being a Mossad asset are true.

2) If Netanyahoo really wants to attack Iran, why would he appoint an IDF chief so much against such attack?

3) "He also ran a 16-man commando operation into southern Lebanon, targeting Hezbollah sites, which went afoul. Hizbullah had the capacity to intercept transmissions from Israeli surveillance drones that were coordinating with the commando team, and Hizbullah was able to stage an ambush that killed 16 members of the IDF team. While the incident was totally hushed up, there is a serious IDF internal probe underway into the failed mission."

Is this separate from the 1996 Ansaria incident, where HA ambushed IDF commandos landing on the lebanese cost? This past August, Nassrallah publicly confirmed that HA had intercepted the drone feeds that tipped HA off to the April 1996 Israeli mission. The Israelis subsequently confirmed it. Has there been another recent attack? Because the two stories sound similar. If true, it would indicate that HA can now actually decrypt encrypted Israeli drone feeds, which would be quite an achievement.

4) "Israel is also aware of the danger of Pakistani strikes against Israel, in retaliation for the bombing of Iran. A French delegation is in Pakistan, in an effort to derail any Pakistani retaliation against Israel, which, of course, could involve the use of nuclear weapons, which would wipe Israel off the map."

Unless this is a surprise nuclear attack, I doubt Pakistan will do anything at all. If it is, then the French are participating in a premeditated nuclear war. Hard to believe, but I don't discount anything.

All in all, a very interesting read and maybe even true, or disinformation with truthful elements within it. But my money is betting against it. Literally as I still have money in the market. Still, might be wise to hedge with some oil stocks.


What does Obama and Congress do on D - day plus Two?

1. State that "Israel has a right to defend itself"

2. Equate criticism of Israel with "supporting terrorism" and instruct the FBI accordingly.

3. Destroy what's left of FDR's "New Deal".

Cesar Arroyo


Any comments on a "incentive offer" the U.S. has reportedly given Israel within the last few days?

"Washington has reportedly said it will strengthen its commitment to oppose UN resolutions critical of Israel, and offer defence and security guarantees.

In return, Israel would stop building for 90 days in the occupied West Bank."

"According to diplomats, the US has said it will not ask Israel to extend the new freeze when it expires, provide 20 F-35 fighter jets worth $3bn, veto or oppose any initiatives at the UN Security Council critical of Israel, and sign a comprehensive security agreement with Israel at the same time as any peace deal is finalised."


This "offer" in return for a 90 day stopage of settlement building blows my mind...

Sidney O. Smith III

The GOI also will want to launch a pre-emptive attack against Iran while the US has the maximum number of US troops deployed in the Middle East, including of course Afghanistan. The GOI goal is make sure that as many US soldiers die as possible, so the US will have to respond with overwhelming force.

Cheney revealed this intent a few years ago when he and David Wurmser tried to jump-start a pre-emptive attack against Iran. Cheney admitted he wanted to see US soldiers die, so then the US would have reasons to wipe out Iran. The 07 NIE prevented its implementation.

Nothing would make Eric Cantor and Bibi happier than to see US soldiers slaughtered because their deaths would promote their cause. For them and for other Jacobins in the USG and media who are promoting the clash of civilizations narrative, the more US troops who come home in body bags, the better.

That is why the neocons used the rationale of COIN to argue for the deployment of as many US troops as possible in that region of the world. Ostensibly COIN (and “nation building” and the “spread of Western democracy) is used to legitimate the deployment of US forces and assets, but in reality the massive US buildup in that region of the world is to act as a protective buffer around Israel, so it then can commit its transgressions and not face retaliation alone.

The GOI and those Jacobins in USG (including the Pentagon) obviously are able to exploit American apathy towards the death of US soldiers -- deaths that are unrelated to national defense. This apathy seems to come from all points on the mainstream political spectum, "progressive" and Republican alike. As a result, the Jacobins in the USG, the media, and the political groups, in complete accord with the GOI, desire to sacrifice US troops to promote their own “special interests” -- interest entirely unrelated to, and in fact, at odds with, the welfare of the American people and the security of the United States.

But what will happen when body bags do come home all on behalf of the desires of Eric Cantor, John Hagee,and Bibi?

Cloned Poster

This is fantasy.

Patrick Lang


In the public domain? You don't give me much credit for sources. Actually, you sound like a hasbara. On the subject of Pakistan, their ballistic missile force could destroy Israel tomorrow and neither the Israelis nor we could do anything to stop that. Your reference to "surprise" as a necessary condition reveals your ignorance on the subject. http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.47/pub_detail.asp pl


Col Lang,

Did I insult someone and not know it? I'm sure you have excellent sources. My mistake for thinking otherwise.

I'm a Hasbarist?!? I've been called many things but that would be a new one. And by far the worst.

"On the subject of Pakistan, their ballistic missile force could destroy Israel tomorrow and neither the Israelis nor we could do anything to stop that. Your reference to "surprise" as a necessary condition reveals your ignorance on the subject. pl"

Guilty as charged. I had no idea Pakistan had such long range, nuclear capable Ballistic missiles. I stand corrected. It makes Iran's nuclear program look superfluous.

Good Day, Sir.

Clifford Kiracofe

Well, some or many may find this report along "conspiracy theory" lines, but I don't dismiss it.

In the 1980s, I had occasion to visit Israel on official business and to exchange views with a range of personalities including Bibi in his office. I have also met Benny Begin.

I found that Israeli extremists were, well, extremely extreme. Thus I could see Bibi and his circle opting for the Iran War backed by their counterparts in the US. This could also provide cover, in the fog of war, for a simultaneous ethnic cleansing or "Transfer" of Palestinians out of Israel.

I would note a few other issues which need analysis:

1. What would Russia and China do? Take a pass?

2. What would the rest of the EU do, if France went into a Suez Crisis mode? What is the level of economic relations between Iran and Germany, Italy, and other EU states?

3. What will Iran do with respect to its assets in Venezuela and Mexico? Would Iranian agents insert WMD into the US via Mexican criminal organizations, or?

4. If Mexico or Venezuela are seen as complicit in an Iranian asymmetrical response against the US what will Washington do? Would we use this as a reason for war against the Chavez regime in Venezuela, for example?

Patrick Lang


OK. I withdraw the "hasbara" bit. i wanted your reaction.

The improved shaheen 2 will range Israel from western Pakistan and is capable against ballistic missile defense.

You are right Iran's program is superfluous. pl


I'm with Cloned Poster. Maybe need to seek out a source with some semblance of understanding of air operations.


Hmmmmm, there may be more to this than meets the eye.

Haaretz is following up a scandal involving one Lt. Col. Harpaz, who is thought to have been part of a plot to thwart Galants nomination as COS via a forged document and shore up Ashkenazi.

I wonder if Harpers helpful information, thoughtfully posted here by Col. Lang, is another shot in the warring going on within the upper ranks of the IDF? Will the good guys win?


judith weingarten

It would increase confidence in this report no end if the source knew how to spell Sarkozy.


I woke up this morning to a description of the US offer to Israel of a truly insane set of goodies, in return for a one-time (and never to be repeated) 90-day settlement freeze.

At the time I thought that this was merely evidence that the Administration had completely lost any grip on reality (perhaps to go along with Cantor's open sedition or worse...).

Now I'm wondering if there aren't additional components to that offer - perhaps that it's contingent on Israel not attacking Iran for 90 days either? That would delay any action until Galant is COS, and perhaps allow reason to prevail. It would also make the tradeoff more nearly reasonable...the deal as it was presented on NPR this morning was grotesquely unbalanced.


"The strike plan developed by Ashkenazi involves attacks on southern Lebanon and Gaza, as the planes take off for their targets inside Iran."

So they have some aircraft to spare, or just want to bomb someone who isn't likely to shoot back?

Thanks for the Strategy Center link within the comments.

robt willmann

The "source" referred to in the report claims he had a meeting with Netanyahu and came away concluding that "he is completely irrational, and stubbornly [refuses] to listen to advice". I assume this is on the subject of a military attack by Israel against Iran which Netanyahu wants to do.

The report and its suggested time frame present a situation in which Ashkenazi, the current chief of staff of the Israeli military, has created a plan to launch two wars -- against "southern" Lebanon and Iran -- plus an attack on the Gaza strip, all at the same time; Netanyahu is considering starting these wars between late November and December 10, 2010; Ashkenazi leaves his position in February 2011 and will be replaced by Galant, who supposedly opposes an attack on Iran; if Israel does not start the wars (and the attack on Gaza) before December 10, 2010, Netanyahu wants to put them "on the table" for March or April 2011; U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates wants to leave on or before August 2011; and in August 2012, Ashkenazi can enter Israeli politics, assuming he "retires" in February 2011.

If the time frame isn't fiction, then Gates had better bail out well before August 2011 if he wants to avoid the mess; in fact, he should resign by the end of this week and go to the Texas A&M against the University of Texas football game on Thanksgiving Day.

Keeping in mind that Israel apparently does not have a large standing army and relies on mobilizing reserves, launching simultaneous ground attacks on Lebanon and Gaza will not be a surprise to anyone. So are the attacks on Gaza and Lebanon to be by air only?

At the same time, France is to refuel the bomb-carrying jets in mid-air during their flight to Iran. This will make France a co-attackor in an aggressive war against a country that has not attacked it, and France's Muslim population will not be pleased. Moreover, this will be done not long after the large protests in France over the government's economic policies.

All this raises the question of the command and order-giving procedures in Israel and France. Can Netanyahu order a military attack on another country unilaterally by himself? Does it require a majority vote by some secret cabinet? If he orders an attack in March or April 2011 and Galant disobeys the order and orders the military not to attack, what happens then? Will the soldiers obey Galant or Netanyahu? What then happens to Galant? Does he want to lose his job? Will Galant join a scheme to oust Netanyahu in order to prevent a war? Who would take Netanyahu's place since Galant has to wait 18 months to participate in Israeli politics?

Likewise in France. Does French law permit Sarkozy unilaterally to order France's military to take an active part in an aggressive military strike against another country?

Despite this bizarre scenario, you cannot discount an attack on Iran in some form by Israel, even though as discussions on this website have shown, the Israeli air force does not have the capability or resources to do "the job" effectively.

The rationale would be like what was done regarding the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Just get an invasion and war started, and war takes on a life of its own. Once military conflict starts, stopping it politically becomes difficult: you must support the troops, we can't cut and run, we must achieve victory, we cannot let the other country become a "sanctuary" for "terrorists", etc. etc.

Israel's goal, of course, is to get the U.S. to do the job for it, or, secondarily, actively to assist and publicly to support such a military strike. Failing that, the idea is to drag the U.S. into the conflict. The Israeli lobby has been laying the psychological groundwork and conditioning on the U.S. Congress by getting it to pass resolutions hostile to Iran.

The Israeli government does not care about harm to the U.S., as was shown by its intentional attack on the ship the U.S.S. Liberty and ongoing 43-year denial of it, and its role in encouraging the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003; it cares only about itself.

But therein lies the rub. War is like opening the door to a dark room, it has been said. This scenario requires the the affirmative decision and active assistance of another country--France. David Cameron and Nick Clegg in Britain may not be the lapdogs that the U.S. Congress has become in such matters.

Put another way: once you roll the dice, they have left your hand, and you will live with the result.

Patrick Lang


"Keeping in mind that Israel apparently does not have a large standing army and relies on mobilizing reserves, launching simultaneous ground attacks on Lebanon and Gaza will not be a surprise to anyone."

You assume ground action at the beginning. pl


The ongoing discussion about an Israeli attack on Iran is beginning to remind me of the saw about an Iranian nuclear bomb (and before that, a war over water in the middle east -- apologies to whomever i'm stealing this from). "It's always a few months away from happening and then... never happens."

Though of course some day this until-now handy bit of conventional wisdom may be proven wrong.


Would be interesting to see the 'attacked' (i.e. Syria, Lebanon,Iran) turning the tables on the Israeli attacker. Too bad that the Arab/Islamic Mideast doesn't decide to make mincemeat out of the Israeli bully.


As Cantor represents your state, what is your 'take' on the nitwit?

Robert R. Rock

Interesting conjecture?
IMHO: If there is a major military operation to attack Iran's nuclear assets, it will not be with manned Israeli planes nor pilots. It will be a NATO operation in which Israeli rank and file personnel will be excused from participating and conspicuously absent; like in the first gulf war. Better odds finding Saudi and Kuwaiti pilots rather than Israeli. That is, if they use any manned planes at all. Drones have come a long way...and they can fly a long way. There are different delivery systems which may prove to be more effective than drones.
The IDF will have it's hands full on the home front.
Much better chance for Iran eventually, reluctantly accepting a compromise deal with the inspectors returning; probably after continued problems with centrifuges and sabotage like the stuxnet virus.
That's a good one, French loaner jet fighters and bombers provided to Israeli pilots. French pride would not permit this from happening, ever. For the French, this would be worse than Iran getting nuclear weapons.


I'm sorry but I dont buy this one bit. They would not be broadcasting this information for all to hear before an attack. You will only hear of an attack plan the day after they've finished the mission.

Russ Wagenfeld


The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

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
Blog powered by Typepad