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

[AWPrime]

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.

You are talking about a preemptive strike and not a defensive one.

 

[Hutch]

Wildcat-Interesting study

Found this on another forum I post to, where the same argument is ongoing....

http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/090316_israelistrikeiran.pdf

It's a pretty long read (114 pages) and I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the information therein, but it does lay out the problems and issues for refueling and why the longer route may be beyond Israeli capabilities.

 

[WildCat]

Found this on another forum I post to, where the same argument is ongoing....

http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/090316_israelistrikeiran.pdf

It's a pretty long read (114 pages) and I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the information therein, but it does lay out the problems and issues for refueling and why the longer route may be beyond Israeli capabilities.

Thanks, I saved it to read later.

At any rate, I've said on this forum before I doubt Israel has the capability to destroy Iran's weapons facilities, they are likely deep underground where no bunker-buster bomb can reach. About all they could realistically do is destroy the nuclear plant the Russians are building.

 

[Marc39]

A report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies suggests Israel could severely hamper Iran's nuclear program for several years, if not destroy it, by concentrating on demolishing the main nuclear sites at Natanz, Esfahan and Arak. Israel could use the Jericho III ballistic missiles equipped with nuclear warheads.

 

[The Fool]

A report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies suggests Israel could severely hamper Iran's nuclear program for several years, if not destroy it, by concentrating on demolishing the main nuclear sites at Natanz, Esfahan and Arak. Israel could use the Jericho III ballistic missiles equipped with nuclear warheads.

you want to nuke Iran?
are you some sort of messianic end of times freak?

 

[Meed]

We have enough leverage against Israel without needing to engage them militarily. The threat of cutting military aid and diplomatic support is huge, since we're their only ally (in addition to being by far the best ally they could hope to have). If we wanted we could compel them to stop settlements as well, a lot of our public calls for them to do this or stop doing that are simply PR.

 

[Marc39]

We have enough leverage against Israel without needing to engage them militarily. The threat of cutting military aid and diplomatic support is huge, since we're their only ally (in addition to being by far the best ally they could hope to have). If we wanted we could compel them to stop settlements as well, a lot of our public calls for them to do this or stop doing that are simply PR.

Jewish settlements are a red herring in peace negotiations.

Two seconds after Israel dismantled its settlements in Gaza and withdrew completely, even exhuming the remains of dead Jews from cemetaries, leaving Gaza Judenrein, Israel was hit by rockets from...Gaza.

Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Were Israel to completely evacuate every last Jew from the West Bank, do you think there would be peace?

A more likely scenario is Hamas, supported by Iran, stages a coup, sends Fatah packing and, before you know it, rockets are sent into Israel. Only, this time, they are not fired at homes in Sderot, they are aimed at Ben-Gurion Airport.

 

[The Fool]

Jewish settlements are a red herring in peace negotiations.

sorry its not your place to announce what is important and what is not important to two parties in a dispute. They decide what is important.

Two seconds after Israel dismantled its settlements in Gaza and withdrew completely, even exhuming the remains of dead Jews from cemetaries, leaving Gaza Judenrein, Israel was hit by rockets from...Gaza.

ok, are you trying again to claim there was an agreement that rocket attacks would stop in exchange for a withdrawal? You tried that one before and got caught out. Has it been long enough that you feel you can try it again?

 

[Darth Rotor]

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.

I think that the political message sent by the US over Iraqi airspace shooting down just one IAF fighter/attack aircraft would be a most the powerful possible statement that can be made in the region. I also think the Israeli gov't realizes that.

(And for those who give a crap about USS Liberty, sweet sweet revenge, but that's OT big time here. Did you notice the revenge extracted from Saddam Hussain over the USS Stark? )

 

[Darth Rotor]

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.

And their foes are idiots, right?

One cannot assume the enemy is stupid, unless one wishes to fail frequently.

 

[Marc39]

I think that the political message sent by the US over Iraqi airspace shooting down just one IAF fighter/attack aircraft would be a most the powerful possible statement that can be made in the region. I also think the Israeli gov't realizes that.

Zbigniew Brzezinski is not a member of the Obama administration nor does he speak for it.

The complete inanity of his statement is reflected in the almost total inattention given him by the mainstream press.

He should be placed in the dustbin of history along with Jimmy Carter.

 

[bigjelmapro]

You are talking about a preemptive strike and not a defensive one.

Holy facepalm. Did you read this before you typed it? Read it again and see if you actually agree with the logic here.

 

[bigjelmapro]

What a load of hogwash here in this thread. I'm all for not starting another war here, but the only thing we have to look for direction here when it came to a strike on a nuclear facility in the ME was Iraq in 1981. Post-1979 Iran months before tried and failed to strike at Osirak, Israel succeeded. Iraq threatened to use non-conventional, including nuclear weapons against Israel directly, whilst Iran has been using proxies to attack Israel.

The Americans during this time in the 80's were directly involved in weapons sales to Iraq. Israel also acted unilaterally during this time without US knowledge. And what was the reason for the 2003 invasion by coalition forces? Care for a re-fresher?

Who is to say that the US's interests in the ME take priority over Israel and its citizens? To my knowledge the brunt of Americans in the ME are part of the military and private military industries hence not soft targets (although this isn't much of a justification). Diplomacy is doing nothing but buying time for Iran's first underground nuclear test. It has been and always been.

There are many other options for a base other than Iraq and wouldn't be flying over Iraq in the first place, but would be using bases within Iraq.

Lastly, Iran's threat of using its ballistic missiles against Israel and US interests is its only deterrent and would thus not be in any rush to use them.

 

[bigjelmapro]

A report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies suggests Israel could severely hamper Iran's nuclear program for several years, if not destroy it, by concentrating on demolishing the main nuclear sites at Natanz, Esfahan and Arak. Israel could use the Jericho III ballistic missiles equipped with nuclear warheads.

Highly doubtful non-conventional weapons would be used. Bunker busters are even doubtful to have a acceptable effect. A number of boots would have to be on the ground in order to destroy these facilities including the secret enrichment facility in Qom. i.e. the nuclear facility destroyed in Syria.

I haven't seen a report that suggests that any attack against these facilities would do anything other than delay a possible nuclear weapons program. The only question here is is whether the current isolationist Iranian regime will be replaced in time by a more responsible government with or without a nuclear weapons arsenal.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Iraq threatened to use non-conventional, including nuclear weapons against Israel directly, whilst Iran has been using proxies to attack Israel.

My memory is a bit soft here, can you provide me a ref, news story, whatever? It's been a while, but this sounds familiar.

The Americans during this time in the 80's were directly involved in weapons sales to Iraq.

That has bloody eff all to do with nukes. That was a French project. The bulk of military equipment in Iraq was Soviet, with some French to boot.

Israel also acted unilaterally during this time without US knowledge. And what was the reason for the 2003 invasion by coalition forces? Care for a re-fresher?

Pre-emption was an element of that policy. The implementation of that policy has in some ways backfired, sort of a self inflicted wound to regional policy. In other ways, it has been a boon to bringing about change ... someone ... can believe in. As I said a while back, Iran has so far been the biggest beneficiary of Saddam being gone, with the Kurds running a close second.

Who is to say that the US's interests in the ME take priority over Israel and its citizens?

That's a very broad question. US interests, for the US, take priority over pretty much anyone's interest when looking at this from an American point of view. I appreciate it isn't the only PoV availalbe. Israel isn't the only player in the ME. Who is to say Israel has the last word on the ME, for example?

To my knowledge the brunt of Americans in the ME are part of the military and private military industries hence not soft targets (although this isn't much of a justification).

Before the Iraq war began, the brunt were contractors for commercial enterprises and a variety of FMS sales.

Diplomacy is doing nothing but buying time for Iran's first underground nuclear test. It has been and always been.

Likely. Diplmoacy/talk is sometimes used as a delaying tactic.

There are many other options for a base other than Iraq and wouldn't be flying over Iraq in the first place, but would be using bases within Iraq.

What do you mean by this? The secret deal to use Saudi AIrspace as the route into Iran is apparently not so secret anymore, unless that story was a smoke screen. I wonder if Turkey is interested in a back door deal, or if their relations with Iran have been improving. That's another possible path. It need not be Iraqi airspace. Given Iraq's importance in the region, and US importance to Israel mid to long term, it is not in Israel's interest to screw with the American-Iraqi relationship in that way.

Lastly, Iran's threat of using its ballistic missiles against Israel and US interests is its only deterrent and would thus not be in any rush to use them.

Yes, I find myself agreeing with the "fleet in being" aspect of the deterrent being their prime short term objective. Longer term is bound up with the future of Iranian politics, internal and external, and my crystal ball is cloudy on that score.

DR

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Do you agree that it's "our" airspace in Iraq?

LOL

Yeah

The Iraqis would be A-OK with it.

hahahahahhahahah good christ.

 

[Darth Rotor]

LOL

Yeah

The Iraqis would be A-OK with it.

hahahahahhahahah good christ.

Who do you think controls the airspace over Iraq?

 

[Marc39]

h

The Iraqis would be A-OK with it.

So, too, would the Saudis be ok with Israel using their airspace.

No countries view Iran as a menace more than those in the region.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Who do you think controls the airspace over Iraq?

For all intents and purposes the USAF.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1098726.html

Iraqi lawmakers warn Israel against attacking Iran

By DPA

Tags: israel news, iran, iraq



Iraqi parliament members on Wednesday warned Israel that using using its country's airspace to attack Iran would be considered an attack against Iraq.

"Any penetration of Iraqi airspace by an Israeli national would be considered an attack against Iraq," Hassan al-Sanid, a member of Iraq's parliamentary committee on security and defense, said in remarks carried in the Baghdad daily al-Sabbah.

Speculation about an Israeli air strike against Iranian nuclear facilities had died down in recent months, but the possibility has returned to public discussion following the unrest surrounding Iran's June presidential elections.
Advertisement

"With no other timely option, the already compelling logic for an Israeli strike is nearly inexorable," former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton argued in the Washington Post on July 2.

Saudi Arabia earlier this week vigorously denied rumors that it had struck a deal with the Israelis to allow use of the kingdom's airspace for such a strike.

"Iraq would use all political, legal, diplomatic and security measures" to protest Israeli use of Iraqi airspace in any hypothetical attack against Iran, al-Sanid said. "International law ensures the integrity of states and their control over their territory and airspace. We would view any violation of this law in that context."

"The Zionist Entity [Israel] cannot take advantage of the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq" to fly over Iraq in a hypothetical strike against Iran, said Mohammed Naji, a member of parliament with the ruling United Iraqi Alliance. "The [U.S.-Iraqi] security agreement guarantees the sovereignty of Iraqi airspace."

Ahead of the U.S. withdrawal from Iraqi cities and towns on June 30, U.S. military commanders said they would continue to provide security for Iraq's borders and airspace after the partial U.S. withdrawal.

"Any penetration of Iraqi airspace by Israeli fighter jets or other planes will be addressed by Iraqi forces," Naji said. "Iraq has full sovereignty over its lands, waters and skies. Iraqis will not allow the Entity to benefit in any way from its land, territorial waters or airspace to attack a neighbor."

"The constitution holds that Iraq shall not be a platform for military operations against neighboring countries," he added. "Iraq adheres to international principles and has opened a new page of close relations in its dealings with its neighbors, especially Iran."

Any use of Iraqi airspace to attack its neighbor would herald "a state of war between the two countries, which would negatively affect the general situation," Naji concluded.



NB: older article, maybe the Iraqis have come around since??