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

[WildCat]

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

Nope, they could go over the Red Sea and into the Indian Ocean without going over any other country's territory.

 

[Darth Rotor]

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.

Which means Obama is stuck with warning Israelis not to do it (we had a thread on that I think a few months ago, it was in the news). Thus, if they try while the USAF is the de facto guarantor of Iraqi Air Space, he is stuck with shooting at least one down and warning the others to return to base.

At stake, as you so clearly pointed out, is preventing a regional conflict, and destroying our position with multiple Arab and Muslim allied nations in the region.

Obama has no choice, internal politics considered: he has to stop them, or our political among numerous allies in the Persian Gulf evaporates.

(Unless, of course, the Saudis (and the rest of them) do as has been rumored, give the IAF a nod and a wink and a free corridor due to their own distaste for Iran ... and then try to blame us! )

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

Nope, they could go over the Red Sea and into the Indian Ocean without going over any other country's territory.

Where do they base the tankers?

 

[WildCat]

Where do they base the tankers?

Indian Ocean.

eta: I'm assuming you mean where do they stage the tankers?

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

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.

excellent post and allow me to dovetail off a few specifics

Afghanistan is making Iraq look positively utopian.

Most people dont realize just how true that really is- side point

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.

I think people often confuse the difference between a "surgical strike" and an all out offensive act leading to full scale war.

The difference here is the objective.

Israel ( like us and most countries) can absorb a conventional attack- sit back, evaluate and strike ( or not) based on whatever is decided.

An atom bomb isnt quite the same thing- you dont "absorb" that unless you have one hell of an appetite.

If Iran does obtain or shows the reasonable probability of obtaining- you can almost guarantee a preemptive strike ( even if it leads to all out war)

 

[Cleon]

Nope, they could go over the Red Sea and into the Indian Ocean without going over any other country's territory.

Not so much...Claimed territory (and airspace) doesn't end at land borders. Even going down the red sea would take them over Saudi and Yemen airspace, or various African countries (that, admittedly, don't really have the resources to stop them).

 

[Cleon]

Which means Obama is stuck with warning Israelis not to do it (we had a thread on that I think a few months ago, it was in the news). Thus, if they try while the USAF is the de facto guarantor of Iraqi Air Space, he is stuck with shooting at least one down and warning the others to return to base.

Well, not just warn; Israel depends on the United States militarily and financially. Cutting that, even a fraction, would have a profound effect on Israel's ability to fight a war. And doing so would be a much easier sell politically than shooting down Israeli aircraft.

 

[WildCat]

Not so much...Claimed territory (and airspace) doesn't end at land borders. Even going down the red sea would take them over Saudi and Yemen airspace, or various African countries (that, admittedly, don't really have the resources to stop them).

Territorial limits only extend 12 miles, so no they do not have to fly through Saudi air space. They'd probably go over Eritrea's and Djibouti's and Somalia's air space, but there'd be nothing those countries could do about it.

 

[Cleon]

excellent post and allow me to dovetail off a few specifics

Thankye.

Most people dont realize just how true that really is- side point

Very true. The United States and the "Afghan" government rolleyes basically control Kabul, and not very well. But you're right, it's a side point.

I think people often confuse the difference between a "surgical strike" and an all out offensive act leading to full scale war.

The difference here is the objective.

Israel ( like us and most countries) can absorb a conventional attack- sit back, evaluate and strike ( or not) based on whatever is decided.

An atom bomb isnt quite the same thing- you dont "absorb" that unless you have one hell of an appetite.

If Iran does obtain or shows the reasonable probability of obtaining- you can almost guarantee a preemptive strike ( even if it leads to all out war)

Correct...And like Afghanistan, I don't think people have a very accurate impression of Iran. This is not some backwater, third world country. This is a modern, industrialized nation. I mean, they've got their own homegrown space program, for crying out loud. Even without nuclear weapons, Iran is more than capable of striking back at Israel, and don't think for a second they won't.

 

[WildCat]

Correct...And like Afghanistan, I don't think people have a very accurate impression of Iran. This is not some backwater, third world country. This is a modern, industrialized nation. I mean, they've got their own homegrown space program, for crying out loud. Even without nuclear weapons, Iran is more than capable of striking back at Israel, and don't think for a second they won't.

By "homegrown space program" you mean ICBM program?

At any rate, aren't they mostly copies of N. Korean missiles?

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Correct...And like Afghanistan, I don't think people have a very accurate impression of Iran. This is not some backwater, third world country. This is a modern, industrialized nation. I mean, they've got their own homegrown space program, for crying out loud. Even without nuclear weapons, Iran is more than capable of striking back at Israel, and don't think for a second they won't.

No they dont. People over in CONUS often get their information from biased or incomplete sources and color it with the saturation of "Hollywood" as their visualization.

Iran is well known in the region for being aggressive,explosive and extreme and unpredictable.

Even there are other Muslim countries- they are more "moderate" and realize the damage war will do to their country. They may support them in principle but not so much with real goods or troops.

Its also no secret to anyone that the massive build up of ISAF forces in the region has Iran as a prime target. ( it aint all about the Taliban)

Its an uneasy peace but a peace.

Iran feels the pressure no doubt. Internally and externally.

For them to be a nuclear threat isnt going to be allowed. It will be stopped. War or not.

 

[Cleon]

By "homegrown space program" you mean ICBM program?

I mean they built their own rocket, and their own satellite, and successfully launched it into space. (This has been verified by NASA.)

That's not something you do without some serious know-how, technology, and industry.

At any rate, aren't they mostly copies of N. Korean missiles?

The rocket was derived from the Shahab line, which started off as a modification from Scuds acquired from Libya and Syria, and later models borrowed from North Korean technology.

However...Given that Iran's launch actually worked, I'm going to say it probably didn't borrow all that heavily from the DPRK.

 

[Marc39]

Israel depends on the United States militarily and financially.

People who post on the Internet should "depend" on the facts.

Israel is one of the 50 richest countries in the world based on per capita income.

Global investment bank Morgan Stanley recently upgraded Israel to developed market status and Israel rose to 3rd place from 9th place in Morgan Stanley's list of 20 emerging markets.

Israeli-based Teva, the world's largest generic pharma company, has a market capitalization of $50 billion.

Warren Buffett, the world's richest man and perhaps the greatest investor of all time, recently purchased a successful Israeli manuacturing company and in visiting Israel, marveled at Israel's tremendous achievements and in such a brief period of time.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Indian Ocean.

eta: I'm assuming you mean where do they stage the tankers?

No, I meant where would they base them, and what signature (intel) do those tankers give off when they take off?

 

[Marc39]

homegrown space program[/I], for crying out loud. Even without nuclear weapons, Iran is more than capable of striking back at Israel, and don't think for a second they won't.

Iran is, in effect, "some backwater, third world country" blessed with oil, which it had absolutely nothing to do in creating. In other words, Iran is no different than any other Muslim and Arab craphole in the Middle East...

US State Department...

Today, Iran's economy is marked by a bloated and inefficient state sector, a reliance on the oil sector (which provides over 85% of government revenues), and statist policies that create major distortions throughout. Most economic activity is controlled by the state. Although the Supreme Leader issued a decree in July 2006 to privatize 80% of the shares of most government-owned companies, private sector activity is typically limited to small-scale workshops, farming, and services. President Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad has failed to make any notable progress in fulfilling the goals of the nation's latest five-year plan. A combination of price controls and subsidies (on food and energy in particular) continue to weigh down the economy, and administrative controls, widespread corruption, and other rigidities undermine the potential for private-sector-led growth. As a result of these inefficiencies, significant informal market activity flourishes and shortages are common. High oil prices in recent years have doubled export earnings since 2004 and have enabled Iran to amass nearly $65 billion in foreign exchange reserves. Yet this increased revenue has not eased economic hardships, which include high unemployment (11% according to government estimates) and double-digit inflation, and the economy has only seen moderate growth. Iran has an educated population, and economic inefficiency and insufficient investment (both foreign and domestic) have prompted an increasing number of Iranians to seek employment overseas, resulting in significant "brain drain.

 

[Marc39]

I think it is a good idea.
The alternative is to allow Israel to declare war on behalf of America.

How many American targets are there in the middle east? How many are you willing to have taken out in retaliation? And why on Earth should Iran accept that America is a neutral third party when American bombs are being dropped on Iran from American planes? -- Even if those bombs and planes have an Israeli flag painted on them.

If you want America to go to war with Iran, that is one thing. But no matter how dumb starting a war with Iran sounds to me, letting Israel declare the war for you sounds even dumber.

If another American war pushes oil to 4-500 dollars a barrel, I think the world may decide that America costs more than it's worth. China has oil interests too, you know.

Permit me to interrupt your gibberish-infused post with some clarity and rational thought: Israel, like any other state, has the inherent right to self-defense. Any state confronted with blatantly existential threats by another country would not only take preemptive countermeasures, they would be obligated to do so, which is the first and last duty of every government.

Israel has no less right to self-preservation nor is the Israeli governmentany less beholden to protect its population.

Until recently, Ajad's threats against Israel had been dismissed as benign rants of a clown with no real power in Iran. However, with the Supreme Clown now echoing unequivocal threats to Israel's national security and the safety of 7 million Israelis, including over one million Israeli Muslims, Israel is morally and legally bound to take military action against Iran.

Those 72 virgins better be prepared for working overtime.

 

[The Fool]

with some clarity and rational thought: Israel, like any other state, has the inherent right to self-defense. Any state confronted with blatantly existential threats by another country would not only take preemptive countermeasures, they would be obligated to do so, which is the first and last duty of every government.

Israel has no less right to self-preservation nor is the Israeli governmentany less beholden to protect its population.

Until recently, Ajad's threats against Israel had been dismissed as benign rants of a clown with no real power in Iran. However, with the Supreme Clown now echoing unequivocal threats to Israel's national security and the safety of 7 million Israelis, including over one million Israeli Muslims, Israel is morally and legally bound to take military action against Iran.

Those 72 virgins better be prepared for working overtime.

Israel failed to attack Iran today. Have they failed in thier moral and legal duty?

 

[WildCat]

No, I meant where would they base them, and what signature (intel) do those tankers give off when they take off?

I doubt Israel is stupid enough to only fly their tankers when they are on a long-range combat mission. Surely they engage in practice excercises at least several times per week.

 

[pchams]

/morons
/learn some diplomacy

Secondly, if the Americans, or the Israelis wish to shoot down anything, and you hear about it, it'll be spun like silk.

 

[Marc39]

/morons
/learn some diplomacy

Because, Iran, after all, is the paragon of correct diplomatic protocol, right?