The coming storm...

Glaucus

Glaucus

Active Member
Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
4,767
Reaction score
697
ForeignPolicy.com has a nice piece on the likelihood of Israel attacking Iran. Their assessment is that it's nearly a sure thing at this point. They argue that Israel is running out of time and they probably could wait no longer than this summer to attack. Also, Israel's nuclear arsenal can not be relied upon as a deterrent for various reasons. And last they argue that escalation favors Israel and will punish Iran.

The Ticking Clock
 
Plus the war plans against Syria seem to be accelerating. If the "UN" can take control of Syrian airspace then they can let Israel through. Syria-Turkey would be a good route to Tehran but Turkey doesn't like Israel at the moment. Syria-Iraq would be even better and the Americans can perhaps "influence" Iraq (though currently the Iraq government is still Iran friendly).
 
According to the article, Iraq's airspace is "undefined", whatever that means. I think the author is suggesting that Israel would fly over Iraq without much to worry about. Iraq doesn't really have an operating air force as far as I know, nor would they be able to shoot down anything flying over head. And they'd need to fly over Iraq anyway, so why not just fly straight over? I don't think Syria (or Turkey) will factor into this at all.
 
No need, there are other nations that Israel can fly over. You think Jordan is gonna shoot down Israeli planes? I don't. Jordan, like Saudi Arabia, are also not too keen on seeing Iran get the bomb. I'm sure the flight corridors have been green lighted for months, if not years.
 
Better rethink that one Fluffy. Israel borders Syria, who at the moment, is engaged in what is effectively a civil war to oust Assad. Do you actually think he would commit his military to protect against Israel over flying Syria, and leave himself open to a full blown Coup while he is looking the other way. Any attempt to escalate a border crossing into a cause celebre would be useless on his part, as presently he is in survival mode. I don't think he would relish an expansion to the Golan Heights.
 
Fade said:
Better rethink that one Fluffy. Israel borders Syria, who at the moment, is engaged in what is effectively a civil war to oust Assad.
Click to expand...

He is being toppled to clear a path to Iran.
 
my friend had their credit card robbed by the mossad... lol... fbi wont do anything...
 
http://article.wn.com/view/2011/05/17/MEDIA_ALERT_Plimus_CEO_to_Discuss_How_eCommerce_Vendors_Can_/

they jacked their number when they bought parts online, plimus processed all the charges which were for shady software and wouldnt say who they gave the money to because they respect users privacy... lol


they sell stuff you can get for free.... lol but they also process credit card thefts... hq in israel and california and banking in cypress... yay!! since it was under 500 its up to the ftc to prosecute... and they wont until they get enuff complaints...
apparently the class action suit against them doesnt contain enough people for the ftc to worry about just yet...

http://www.topclassactions.com/laws...it-news/1586-plimus-scam-class-action-lawsuit
 
Fade said:
Better rethink that one Fluffy. Israel borders Syria, who at the moment, is engaged in what is effectively a civil war to oust Assad. Do you actually think he would commit his military to protect against Israel over flying Syria, and leave himself open to a full blown Coup while he is looking the other way. Any attempt to escalate a border crossing into a cause celebre would be useless on his part, as presently he is in survival mode. I don't think he would relish an expansion to the Golan Heights.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think it would play to Assad's favor. If Assad is still in power, Israel would likely initiate a preemptive strike against Syrian air defense systems. This would certainly rally the people around the flag if not around Assad. There's nothing like an external threat to rally the people. It would also be a colossal distraction allowing him to crack down like he'd really like to. Toppling Assad may not, as Fluffy would want us to believe, automatically mean that Israel would have the green light to fly over Syria. If Assad were to resign or if he were ousted, his air force would most certainly be fully intact, and there's no reason that any new Syrian leadership would be friendly with Israel or wish to take part in an attack on Iran. The Syrian army is not like the Egyptian army that has had close ties to the US. Quite the opposite, Syrian officers have always seen Israel as an enemy and aren't likely to stand by and watch their old adversary do as they please in their own home turf.

Of course I already demonstrated that Israel doesn't need to fly over Syria and that's mostly because they really need to fly a straight line to Iran as the targets are near the very edge of their combat range. A detour over Syria to avoid Jordan doesn't make sense, especially when you consider the fighter bombers will be flying back low on fuel, without any amo and potentially damaged. Why take the risk of flying over even a potentially hostile nation when you got plenty of friendly nations in more convenient places?
 
Western diplomacy regards the Syrian president as a lost cause, so since he has close ties with Iran, toppling Assad would be a major blow to Tehran, argues UK journalist and author Jonathan Steele.

The West calling to open a humanitarian corridor to Syria means, in other words, it is seeking to have a number of foreign military people move into Syria, perhaps against the will of Damascus, evaluates Steele.
The other step in this direction is readiness to recognize the Syrian opposition once it unites into a joint political force with a united platform to be safely communicated with, he said.
https://syrianfreepress.wordpress.com/2011/12/05/toppling-assad-is-proxy-war-against-iran/
syrian press thinks so too
 
Most discussions of possible United States military operations in the Persian Gulf, should Iran try to prevent maritime traffic from going through the Strait of Hormuz, generally say that while it would not be a cakewalk, it would not be an enormously difficult task either.
But that conventional wisdom is wrong, according to a recent report issued by an independent, non-profit public policy research institute in Washington DC. The report found that the traditional post-Cold War US military ability to project power overseas with few serious challenges to its freedom of action may be rapidly drawing to a close.
While such conclusions have been voiced before, most notably in regard to capabilities being developed by the People's Republic of China — which is developing an anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) battle network that could constrain the US military's ability to maneuver in the air, sea, undersea, space and cyber-space operating domains — China is hardly the only country that has developed such options.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=14053
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
He is being toppled to clear a path to Iran.
Click to expand...

He is being toppled for the Caliphate. Assad family is Alawite (Shia-Christian sect) vs the 74% Sunni population so we see which way this is heading, away from Iranian (Shia) control. If Israel can deal a massive blow to Iran, the Sunni countries won't cry a single tear.
 
Glaucus said:
I get a kick out of how certain you are of these things.
Click to expand...
Just a hunch, in the same way that I have a hunch that every time I let go of a bowling ball it will fall down. This is what experience has taught.

However, this grand area plan for North Africa and the Middle East is not a new thing that somebody just came up with last week - it's a long term plan that grows out of the fact that the area is full of oil and the US wants to be the top dog that controls the spigot. It's not about making money from oil, it's that oil life for a country. You can't run a country without oil and whoever controls the oil controls any country that needs it. (Enemies of this strategy include solar energy, nuclear fission & fusion, wave power, renewables, efficiency and people who want to do something about global warming).

We have known that Iran was due for attack since 2002 but it just hasn't happened yet though they have been talking about it for a decade at least - though Iran was already attacked and taken over in the fifties, except they kicked out the puppet ruler in the seventies so the desire to regain Persia has been on the books for at least 30 years.

Back in 2007 General Wesley Clark spoke about a plan to topple multiple countries - and I'll repost that video now:
The specific order of countries changes over time as conditions dictate and sometimes the list changes slightly but the plan is in place and the plan is continuing and we should not act all surprised each time when an agenda item on someone's plan actually happens.
There is resistance to the plan both internally and externally but there is a plan and it advances from time to time when the planners can get enough backing.
 
There's no question that some people in Washington would very much like for the US to have a policy toward Iran, the endgame of which is war or externally induced regime change. And they have a long-term strategy to bring this about, which is to block efforts at meaningful diplomacy, so that the only thing left on the table is war or externally induced regime change.​
Now, according to reports from DC, come Joe Lieberman and Lindsay Graham with a new bill. What does their bill seek to do? According to reports from people who have seen the draft bill, in its current form, it seeks to block the president from having a policy to "contain" Iran if it develops nuclear weaponscapability.​
Jasmin Ramsey wrote Wednesday at LobeLog:​
The key lines in the resolved [clauses] have been highlighted by a Washington policy expert:​
"(6) Strongly rejects any policy that fails to prevent the Iranian government from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability and that instead would settle for future efforts to "contain" a nuclear weaponscapable Iran;​
(7) Urges the President to reaffirm the unacceptability of an Iran with nuclear-weaponscapability and to oppose any policy that would rely on containment as an option in response to the Iranian nuclear threat." [Emphasis added on variations of the word "capable."]​
​
Why would this policy be so outrageous? Because many US and Western officials believe that it would be unattainable.​
Several American and European officials say privately that the most attainable outcome for the West could be for Iran to maintain the knowledge and technology necessary to build a nuclear weapon while stopping short of doing so.​
​
So, if the reports are accurate, then what Lieberman and Graham seek to do is block the president from pursuing a goal that knowledgeable American and European officials say is the "most attainable outcome."​
In other words, what Lieberman and Graham seek to do is block any kind of meaningful US diplomatic engagement with Iran over the nuclear issue.​
Will Lieberman and Graham prosper in their effort to sabotage diplomacy? Even if their bill never becomes law, if it attracts support from Senate Democrats, it will be cited in press reports as a reason that the Obama administration is constrained from pursuing serious diplomacy.​
Something to watch: what New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand does, because she supported Lieberman in December in insisting that no diplomatic effort was acceptable that allowed Iran to continue enriching uranium. So, if I'm Lieberman, Gillibrand is my next Democratic target in the effort to block President Obama from pursuing meaningful diplomacy to prevent war.​
​
 
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/14/us_media_takes_the_lead_on_iran/

UPDATE: The latest episode being used to fuel the flames of war are two attacks yesterday on Israeli diplomats: one in India and one in Georgia. The headline in The Washington Post tells you all you need to know about how these attacks are being used: “Israel blames Iran for India and Georgia bombing attempts; Tehran denies role.” As Juan Cole points out, Indian investigators do not believe Iran was responsible, though he writes that “American media just parrot” the accusations against Iran by Israeli officials. We’ll likely never know who was actually responsible, though what is clear is that the attacks are being instantly exploited by Israel-devoted neocons to further depict Iran as a Grave Menace (Jennifer Rubin, Washington Post: if Iran is responsible, it’s “one more piece of data that Iran is growing ever bolder and more aggressive”), all without noting the glaring irony that the mode of attack in India is virtually identical to the one used to kill numerous Iranian scientists (“a magnetic bomb was slapped onto [the] car by a passing motorcyclist”). One thing is crystal clear, as macgupta put it in the comment section: “In any case, no matter who the perpetrators are, these attacks are a sign that we are moving closer to a war with Iran.”

UPDATE II: Speaking of mindless media recitations designed to fuel war, we find this today at The New York Times – Ground Zero for such behavior — from Ethan Bronner, whose son, until very recently, was in the Israeli Defense Forces:
If actually carried out by Iran, the attacks would beanother indication that the leadership in Tehran was willing to reach beyond its borders against its enemies and expand its attacks to civilians. The United States has charged that Iran was behind a plot to assassinate a Saudi ambassador on American soil, and Israel has said that Iran has planned to attack its citizens in various countries, but that those plots were stopped.​
There is absolutely no evidence beyond the assertions of the U.S. and Israeli governments that Iran has done any such thing — indeed, the plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador was so facially incredible that it provoked widespread mockery even among the types of Foreign Policy Experts who reflexively endorse whatever the U.S. Government says and does — but Bronner simply assumes those claims are true and thus says that if Iran is behind these latest attacks, then it is “another indication that the leadership in Tehran was willing to reach beyond its borders against its enemies and expand its attacks to civilians.” He also then quotes an anonymous Israeli official about the India bombing this way: “Iran’s fingerprints are all over this,” but Bronner ignores — simply does not mention — the substantial evidence to the contrary. The whole article is written so blindly from the Israeli perspective that it is what would have been produced had Bronner asked his son’s former comrades to write it for him, but this is absolutely the norm: anything the Americans and Israelis want to highlight as proof of Iranian evil and aggression will be regurgitated by most American journalists writing about this conflict.

 
Of course the US is going to war with Iran, how else will Obama get re-elected?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top