Brzezinski: US Should Shoot Down Israeli Bombers Targeting Iran's Nuclear Facilities

[WildCat]

From my second link:

That's stretching the definition quite a bit. A bit too far IMHO.

Got anything more?

I'm not a military law expert, so I really can't elaborate more except to say that it's obviously not treason.

Has anyone in the US ever been charged with treason for refusing an order?

 

[AWPrime]

That's stretching the definition quite a bit. A bit too far IMHO.

Don't you think that they are playing both teams?

I'm not a military law expert, so I really can't elaborate more except to say that it's obviously not treason.

Has anyone in the US ever been charged with treason for refusing an order?

We will just have to wait for one. So far as I can tell 'insubordination' has a wide range of punishments depending on the circumstances, ranging from dishonorable discharge, years of incarceration, to capital punishment.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

A stupid question based on a false premise.



How many F-22s are deployed to the middle east, atm?

How many will be deployed by the time Israel launches its raid?

There are fighters in the air 24/7 now over here as well as hosts of other anti aircraft countermeasures.

Not that the scenario would happen but hypothetically they would be met in the air immediately and destroyed

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Don't you think that they are playing both teams?


We will just have to wait for one. So far as I can tell 'insubordination' has a wide range of punishments depending on the circumstances, ranging from dishonorable discharge, years of incarceration, to capital punishment.

In this absurd scenario - one has to accept it could even happen in the first place ( thats asking a lot) but lets assume it did for discussion purposes.

The first question is "Is it a legitimate and LAWFUL order to begin with?"

In the proposed scenario ( as silly as it is to order the destruction of an allied countries planes on an official mission when mutual interests are at stake)- the order to engage would be a lawful ( if not questionable one) order and obeyed as such.

There are many levels of determining the validity of such a questionable order.

It has to come down the chain to the individual commanders on the ground.

If it made it to the line people- it would have been authenticated many times.

 

[FireGarden]

Now explain to me again how Iran shoul be considered a neutral 3rd party when Iranian weapons are being used to killl Israeli citizens even though they have a Hezbollah or Hamas flag on them?

When did I say Iran was a neutral third party?

China is not about to become a nuclear wasteland over the price of oil.

You think it's willing to have its economy put under huge pressure for the sake of letting the Americans do whatever they want? I doubt it. Wars have been started for less. And China would retaliate to a nuclear strike with a nuclear strike. America is not about to become a nuclear wasteland for a war it didn't choose to start.

Israel has the means to set back the Iranian nuclear program by years, perhaps decades. They'll take what they can get.

Doubtful they would set it back by a day. If Iran has a secret nuclear weapons programme, then no-one knows where it is. Which kind of makes it difficult to bomb. If they did know where it is, then it kind of poses the question why that location hasn't been searched.

Plus there's the old Russian joke: Of course Iran stopped its nuclear weapons programme in 2003... They'd finished it.

You mean they might give more money to Hamas and Hezbollah?

No. I mean they's bomb US forces in the Gulf. And choke off oil supply routes.

But suddenly now regime change becomes the only option?

For those who want to bomb Iran and aren't under the impression that the Iranians will just sit there and take it. Especially under their current political circumstances. They're probably praying for an outside enemy right now.

Israel wouldn't be forcing America into anything.

Yes, it would be. Otherwise why is America reluctant to bomb Iran? Bush would have done it if he shared your assessment of the Iranian response. He didn't. He chose to avoid all out war.

Iran is already at war with Israel and the USA and even then, it's still Irans choice how they respond to an attack. And it should be Iran that is held responsible. Not Israel for acting in self defense.

LOL.
If Iran responds to being bombed it's Iran's fault for starting a war? Never heard anything funnier. We're so lucky that Bush was smarter than you. Because China sure as hell isn't going to blame Iran under those circumstances. I don't expect Russia will either. Though Russia will probably love the higher fuel prices.

 

[Sporanox]

You think it's willing to have its economy put under huge pressure for the sake of letting the Americans do whatever they want? I doubt it. Wars have been started for less. And China would retaliate to a nuclear strike with a nuclear strike. America is not about to become a nuclear wasteland for a war it didn't choose to start.

Why would an Israeli strike be a nuclear strike? And why would China want to start a war with the US?

If Iran responds to being bombed it's Iran's fault for starting a war? Never heard anything funnier.

Unfortunately, Iran is completely responsible for the continuation of its nuclear program as well as the shameful proxy war it is fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[WildCat]

When did I say Iran was a neutral third party?

So then you accept that Israel has every right to attack Iran?

You think it's willing to have its economy put under huge pressure for the sake of letting the Americans do whatever they want? I doubt it. Wars have been started for less. And China would retaliate to a nuclear strike with a nuclear strike. America is not about to become a nuclear wasteland for a war it didn't choose to start.

Striking the US with nukes is about China's only recourse. They simply don't have the capability to project conventional forces to Iran, or anywhere else for that matter.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

When did I say Iran was a neutral third party?



You think it's willing to have its economy put under huge pressure for the sake of letting the Americans do whatever they want? I doubt it. Wars have been started for less. And China would retaliate to a nuclear strike with a nuclear strike. America is not about to become a nuclear wasteland for a war it didn't choose to start.





Doubtful they would set it back by a day. If Iran has a secret nuclear weapons programme, then no-one knows where it is. Which kind of makes it difficult to bomb. If they did know where it is, then it kind of poses the question why that location hasn't been searched.

Plus there's the old Russian joke: Of course Iran stopped its nuclear weapons programme in 2003... They'd finished it.



No. I mean they's bomb US forces in the Gulf. And choke off oil supply routes.



For those who want to bomb Iran and aren't under the impression that the Iranians will just sit there and take it. Especially under their current political circumstances. They're probably praying for an outside enemy right now.



Yes, it would be. Otherwise why is America reluctant to bomb Iran? Bush would have done it if he shared your assessment of the Iranian response. He didn't. He chose to avoid all out war.



LOL.
If Iran responds to being bombed it's Iran's fault for starting a war? Never heard anything funnier. We're so lucky that Bush was smarter than you. Because China sure as hell isn't going to blame Iran under those circumstances. I don't expect Russia will either. Though Russia will probably love the higher fuel prices.

Doubtful they would set it back by a day. If Iran has a secret nuclear weapons programme, then no-one knows where it is. Which kind of makes it difficult to bomb. If they did know where it is, then it kind of poses the question why that location hasn't been searched.

Plus there's the old Russian joke: Of course Iran stopped its nuclear weapons programme in 2003... They'd finished it.

Theres a lot more known than apparently you are aware of

No. I mean they's bomb US forces in the Gulf. And choke off oil supply routes.

No they wouldnt- they dont have the capability to initiate and sustain such an operation. Their conventional war fighting capability is somewhat weak

For those who want to bomb Iran and aren't under the impression that the Iranians will just sit there and take it. Especially under their current political circumstances. They're probably praying for an outside enemy right now.



Yes, it would be. Otherwise why is America reluctant to bomb Iran? Bush would have done it if he shared your assessment of the Iranian response. He didn't. He chose to avoid all out war.

What do you think we are over here building more bases, airfields and increasing troop levels for? The Taliban?

Thats one of those "secrets" that everybody knows LOL. The Iranians know it too- thats why they are itching to start it before major forces are ready

Because China sure as hell isn't going to blame Iran under those circumstances. I don't expect Russia will either. Though Russia will probably love the higher fuel prices

They will toe their standard lines they always do ( I love their stances on "human rights") but neither of them trust Iran and neither of them are capable of doing anything about it

 

[INRM]

The U.S. cannot go to blows with Israel.

First of all, if we engaged their air-force we'd lose. They have way better technology than we do in terms of missile-jammers, electronics, and missiles (ever heard of the Rafael Python V?), and they have far more skilled pilots, and they have a far greater experience in fighting wars than we do.

Secondly, I think Israel, so long as it doesn't have an unreasonable chance of dragging us into a war with Iran, *should* bomb Iran and end their nuclear weapons program.

Additionally, a lot of Jewish people in this country, including some servicemen, are zionistic and there is a possibility a significant number would support Israel over us, they'd start spying for Israel and helping the Mossad out.


INRM
(Hope I don't disappear, have a heart-attack, die mysteriously, get some incurable cancer or disease, or end up arrested on bogus charges for saying what I said)

 

[FireGarden]

So then you accept that Israel has every right to attack Iran?

Yes. And Iran has every right to respond. And America has every right to stop it getting that far -- inlcuding the right to shoot down Israeli fighters/bombers.

No they wouldnt- they dont have the capability to initiate and sustain such an operation. Their conventional war fighting capability is somewhat weak.


What do you think we are over here building more bases, airfields and increasing troop levels for? The Taliban?

Thats one of those "secrets" that everybody knows LOL. The Iranians know it too- thats why they are itching to start it before major forces are ready.

So... All those years Bush and Cheney had the opportunity, they just couldn't get enough forces in the area. They just couldn't dig the bases deep enough, or get enough protection for the navy in the area. And it has taken this long to get ready because Iran is weak and the world would just shrug its shoulders. Glad you're here to tell us these things.

Should the Americans wait until they're ready, or should they launch the war when Israel is tired of waiting? That is the topic of the thread.

 

[Skeptic]

Either he is totally off his rocker, or the man simply HATES jews.

And, in both cases, a perfect match for his former boss.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

So... All those years Bush and Cheney had the opportunity, they just couldn't get enough forces in the area. They just couldn't dig the bases deep enough, or get enough protection for the navy in the area. And it has taken this long to get ready because Iran is weak and the world would just shrug its shoulders. Glad you're here to tell us these things.

Should the Americans wait until they're ready, or should they launch the war when Israel is tired of waiting? That is the topic of the thread.

First things first, apparently you didnt get the memo

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

The U.S. cannot go to blows with Israel.

First of all, if we engaged their air-force we'd lose. They have way better technology than we do in terms of missile-jammers, electronics, and missiles (ever heard of the Rafael Python V?), and they have far more skilled pilots, and they have a far greater experience in fighting wars than we do.

Secondly, I think Israel, so long as it doesn't have an unreasonable chance of dragging us into a war with Iran, *should* bomb Iran and end their nuclear weapons program.

Additionally, a lot of Jewish people in this country, including some servicemen, are zionistic and there is a possibility a significant number would support Israel over us, they'd start spying for Israel and helping the Mossad out.


INRM
(Hope I don't disappear, have a heart-attack, die mysteriously, get some incurable cancer or disease, or end up arrested on bogus charges for saying what I said)

What Israel are you talking about? The one WE helped train and build and currently support with technology?

Their "skill" and "experience" are more urban legend than fact.

They are tough, I'll grant you but not the best by far- equipment or people.

 

[Hutch]

Look, the argument is simple; if we detect (with no prior coordination or notification by the Israeli Government--this is the CRITICAL POINT) a large mission (50+ planes may be required) heading over Iraqi airspace bound for Iran, what do we (the United States) do?

And while wildcat think the mission could be done by skirting around Iraq, the logistics problems would be immense.

Option 1 is send up planes to force them to turn around, or engage them if they refuse (and I don't believe for a moment that US pilots and commanders would refuse orders by the Commander-In-Chief; that would be the beginning of the end of American democracy). The consequences would be (1) extraordinary chilly relations between the US and Israel, with Isreal depending more on Russia and her allies for aid and weapons. (2) General approval by Middle East/European/Russian/Chinese governments (albeit most would like to see the Iranian program set back) (3) Unknown Iranian response--maybe favorable toward negotiations with the US, maybe even more belligerent believing the occupant of the White House is weak.

Option 2 is to let the mission go forward, to whatever fate awaits it (and there is no guarantee that any one mission will significantly set back the program and the risks are much greater than in Saddams' day). The consequneces would be (1) Utter condemnation by all Middle East and Muslim countries (even if they silently approve of the defanging of Iran, they would have no choice with their populace) with various embargos and cutting of diplomatic ties. (2) A Iranian response (and they MUST RESPOND--any government that after all they have said and preached did not respond would be considered impotent and weak by their own people, who aren't to thrilled with the leadership anyway) which at a minimum will mean an attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz and perhaps the infiltration of thousands of guerillas into Iraq. (3) Pressure economically by China and Russia on the United States and Europe to 'restrain' Israel, lest valuable oil supplies go wanting (and given the level of US debt to China and Western European dependence on Russian gas and oil, they MUST be listened to). (4) A major resurgence of terrorism around the world, to include the United States (this I admit is more speculation than the other points, but I think it is a fair estimation).

So what is in America's best interests? Hopefully some smart folks at Defense and State have been thinking about this long before Obama took the oath of office.

All the above said, the thought that Israel would act without informing the United States, the one Great Power that they have known they could depend on for the last 40-50 years, is not conceivable. It would be a breach of trust and any damage suffered by the United States or it's troops due to a surprise (to the US Government) Israeli raid would damage relations between the two countries, perhaps irrevocably.

IMHO as always.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

All the above said, the thought that Israel would act without informing the United States, the one Great Power that they have known they could depend on for the last 40-50 years, is not conceivable. It would be a breach of trust and any damage suffered by the United States or it's troops due to a surprise (to the US Government) Israeli raid would damage relations between the two countries, perhaps irrevocably.

IMHO as always.

I think you pretty much nailed it on that one.

However- I do not rule out a "first strike" ( probably by us to keep Israel from doing it for some of the reasons you listed) and fully expect to see combat in Iran in the not too distant future.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Pure insanity.

Brezinski wants American pilots to commit acts of war against a closely allied democracy in protection of a sworn enemy of the United States, one that has been killing US servicemen in Afghanistan and Iraq, and defending thier illegal nuclear weapons program?

Either he is totally off his rocker, or the man simply HATES jews.

I respectfully disagree with you. Zbig the Prig is pretty much right. The Iraqi Air Force is, as of this time and place, pretty much a non funcitonal organization in re ensuring sovereignty of Iraqi air space. US still has de facto control and responsibility for the sanctity of Iraqi air space. Given our alliance with Maliki's elected and legitimate Iraqi government, which is pretty much what our various security and forces agreements amount to -- an alliance at least in the near term -- we owe him good service as guardians of his airspace until his Air Force is ramped up and "safe for solo" on their own.

Look at that again: as it stands right now, Iraq is a US ally.

It therefore makes infinite sense to shoot down ANY armed intruder over Iraqi air space, thus honoring our security agreements with the Iraqi government. (Hell, if the USAF will shoot down US Army helicopters over Iraq, there is no reason not to shoot down Israeli aircraft over Iraq. That was my cheap shot at the USAF. )

Let us imagine that Saddam Hussein's Air Force was still intact and flying. If IAF flies over his airspace to attack Iran, (and he didn't make a deal with them under the table to allow this) he and his Air Force would endeavour to shoot down armed planes violating his. His AF went the way of the plains buffalo. The new sheriff in town is the US Joint Forces Air Commander (JFAC), and he will be until Iraqi Air Force Version 2.0 is through alpha and beta testing, and is ready for release.

Zbig is not nuts. He sees clearly what US security treaty obligations to Iraq are.

Also, the threat of that ought to keep the IAF guessing, and act as a deterrent to war.

Deterrent's to war are often a good idea.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

That's stretching the definition quite a bit. A bit too far IMHO.


I'm not a military law expert, so I really can't elaborate more except to say that it's obviously not treason.

Has anyone in the US ever been charged with treason for refusing an order?

UCMJ has a different category of offense for that. The charge isn't treason.

Article 92:

892. ART. 92. FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION
Any person subject to this chapter who--
(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or
(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;
shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Article 90

ASSAULTING OR WILLFULLY DISOBEYING SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER.
Any person subject to this chapter who--
(1) strikes his superior commissioned officer or draws or lifts up any weapon or offers any violence against him while he is in the execution of his officer; or
(2) willfully disobeys a lawful command of his superior commissioned officer;
shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, and if the offense is committed at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.

ART. 99. MISBEHAVIOR BEFORE THE ENEMY
Any person subject to this chapter who before or in the presence of the enemy--
(1) runs away;
(2) shamefully abandons, surrenders, or delivers up any command, unit, place, or military property which it is his duty to defend;
(3) through disobedience, neglect, or intentional misconduct endangers the safety of any such command, unit, place, or military property;
(4) casts away his arms or ammunition;
(5) is guilty of cowardly conduct;
(6) quits his place of duty to plunder or pillage;
(7) causes false alarms in any command, unit, or place under control of the armed forces;
(8) willfully fails to do his utmost to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy any enemy troops, combatants, vessels, aircraft, or any other thing, which it is his duty so to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy; or
(9) does not afford all practicable relief and assistance to any troops, combatants, vessels, or aircraft of the armed forces belonging to the United States or their allies when engaged in battle;
shall be punished by death or such punishment as a court- martial may direct.

FWIW, none of that is treason, though some of it may be cowardly or dishonorable.

 

[WildCat]

Yes. And Iran has every right to respond.

If they responded by going after the US directly they'd be in for a world of hurt.

 

[WildCat]

And while wildcat think the mission could be done by skirting around Iraq, the logistics problems would be immense.

If Israel has tanker aircraft I don't see this as being an "immense" problem. No different from when the US had to divert through the Straits of Gibralter after France and Spain refused to allow US planes based in the UK to fly over their air space to bomb Libya in response to the Achille Lauro hijacking back in the 80s.

And it looks like Israel may have been planning this route for years:

Alongside these missions however, the International Squadron, also known as Squadron 120, is mainly responsible for the midair refueling of the IAF's wide array of F-15 and F-16 fighter jets. With Iran racing toward nuclear power and estimations that a military strike is a possible option to stop its nuclear program, this capability is turning into a strategic asset.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1176152838805

If Israel does decide to try to take out Iran's nuclear capability this is the way they'd get there IMHO. Really, it's their only option. No Iraqi overflight necessary.

eta:
Also from that article:

"Flying through Jordan without the explicit or implicit permission of the Jordanians would hurt relations with a friendly Arab state," Brom wrote in a recent article in the book Getting Ready for a Nuclear Iran. "Flying over Iraq without coordination with the United States would lead to a clash with US interceptors."

 

[Cleon]

Aside from Hutch's spot-on observations, I find the possibility of Obama ordering a shoot-down of Israeli fighters to be completely unrealistic. The political fallout would be absolutely disastrous for him and the Democratic party. That would cause a mass defection to the Republicans - not just from the Democrats' massive support from the Jewish community, but also from the moderate/conservative Democrats. They would, in effect, be handing over the next election or three to the other side of the aisle.

That's not to say Obama would allow Israel to attack Iran without consequences; as others have noted, to do so would effectively allow Israel to declare war on Iran on the US' behalf, and that's simply a horrible, horrible idea at the moment. Even in the snowballs-chance-in-hell possibility that the US would remain neutral, the very last thing Obama needs is a war fought literally over Iraq.

Also, rhetoric aside, I find the possibility of Israel launching a unilateral attack against Iran to be fairly unrealistic as well, unless Netanyahu has completely lost his marbles.

Even aside from Iraq, an Israeli strike force would have to go through one or more of the following countries: Turkey, Syria, Jordan, and/or Saudi Arabia - none of whom would be willing to allow them to do so, and with the exception of Syria, they all have modern US-built fighter jets (to say nothing of surface-to-air capabilities). This would, quite probably, start a regional war--and even if the US was 100% behind Israel, frankly we can't afford it. The Iraqi "government" is shaky at best, and Afghanistan is making Iraq look positively utopian.

In short...Beat your chest all you want about Israel having the "right" to attack Iran, but you better damn well hope it doesn't happen. Nothing, and I mean nothing, good would come of it.