It's really scary. We visited the Holy Land when my children were little. I'd really like to go back some day and take it all in without the pressure of entertaining the kids, but you couldn't get me to feel safe enough right now.

First of all, I can't imagine the strategic plan Israel would employ against Iran. I posted elsewhere that a typical squadron contains about 20-25 planes. Israel would have to fly several squadrons to hit Iran's nuclear facilities (which are scattered across Iran) and that would be about all the combat aircraft that Israel could assign to the attack. Israeli aircraft would have to traverse the airspace of at least two hostile countries. Once over Iran they could encounter Iranian aircraft and flack which is bound to down a few of them. Then there is the problem of refueling since it's a 2,000 mile roundtrip.

Not just that, but what plan is there for afterwards?

If the strikes happen, what is the follow-up military/diplomatic response to keep nukes out of Iran?
What if the strikes fail to stop a nuclear Iran?
Response to last question, do you then commence more strikes or invasion?
What if Israel goes it alone with America's knowledge or consent?
If that happens, how will they help the Americans that become targets of terrorism for something they're not even in league with?

There's more, but I'm too depressed to consider them.

If they really do this without our support, Obama should grow a apair and do in response as Eisenhower told Israel/UK/France over the Suez Canal: No Thank You. It might cost him the election, but god dammit you're the Commander-in-Chief of the American Armed Forces. You don't take your orders from a foreign government, much less pander to their little games.

The whole idea of a nation the size of New Jersey bullying a big nation like America into war is just fucked up. Even with our "stupid" wars, America went into them willingly by initiative or response.

I don't think Israel will attack for the reasons you expressed. Also, there's no guarantee that the attack would succeed.

I'm not that optimistic. Why wouldn't Netanyahu think he's got the administration by the balls on this issue?

Or put it another way: Netanyahu is Chris Brown, America is Rihanna. Where logic is trumped by nonsense.



If you mean "succeed" as in actually destroying the program, I'm not sure how it can? The Iranian government may be run by sociopathic evil people (necessary component for dictatorships), but they're not stupid. Not all of their nuclear materials are stored at the locations, spots on the map that's passed around the Internet lately. Or even at targets on our confidental maps.

For all we know, they've quietly smuggled them into the basement of the local McDonalds. Or better yet: A hospital! A Mosque!

Netanyahu lobbying U.S. Senators against Obama



http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/netanyahu-will-ask-obama-to-threaten-iran-strike-1.415428

McCain later says:

Low support in Israel for Threatened Strikes



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/29/iran-israel-solo-attack_n_1310765.html?ref=world

Obama, read this. Use it to make some brass balls for yourself.

Good Ronnie, first he has to get some fricken balls ! Let alone Brass, they are to good for him !

Michelle has his balls in her purse.

What a pair ! Not only talking about what is in M's purse the queen LMAO ! But the pair together ! YUK ! Gag me with a spoon and then give me !!! Lady Gag, Gag, doesn't even come close !!!!!!

Hope that I have got my point across ! With the Obama gang ! YUK !

I would vote for fricken Mickey @ Minnie Mouse over most of this shit ! You can take that to the bank !

Just Sayen, From the Heart ! And also what most of the USA feels !

Frosty with old but big Balls !!!!!

Still waiting for an answer to my question: What would Iran have to do, if there's anything at all, that would make some folks here believe that military action was the only solution left?

The fact that those folks have not been able to answer this question tells me they've already taken military action off the table, if it was ever there to begin with. Which, in turn, kills their credibility on this issue all together.

How about a legit nuke stockpile? I mean for real, not speculation or nightmares or whatever. I don't mean maybe their making it, they could but for real they wipe their ass with the NPT and publicly trump their regime security trump card by marching warheads down Tehran boulevard. Not to be cynical, but remember Iraq? All that hot air, used by a dictatorship as a deterrent against invasion.

I mean Cuba 1962, when the folks at the Pentagon looked at those photos and SHIT THEIR PANTS. That's what I want. That's when war is acceptable. In one possible scenario. I won't play your game of destructive simplicity.

What next, we strike Beijing because they could potentially invade Tawain next year? Strike Moscow because they could potentially molest Georgia again? Invade Egypt because they could go religiously insane? Hell if we're going on that logic train, let's attack Pakistan because they have nukes and they clearly don't like us. (You know, a REAL stockpile of nukes.)

There's something to be said about letting the bad guys DO SOMETHING and then go N.W.A. on their asses. Usually they won't "do something" because of our overwhelming military deterence. But when they do, BAM! That's the point.

Better question, why aren't most Israelis (if that poll is accurate and not a fluke) apparently not having a boner for this potential war? Let me guess, you'll dismiss them as naive cowards too? Will you paint them as waving a peace paper in the air just after an airflight? Can you explain that?

(OK I'll play your game sorta. Remove the nuclear issue all together, if Iran tried to legit close the Strait of Hormuz...that would be absolutely unacceptable. We would send a badass Navy fleet down their throat to piss on their bullshit blockade. If they do fire first, give'em hell. And Lead.)

There was another part of that Israeli poll I posted earlier:



http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=259889

~Tomorrow's talking point on Fox News: How liberal and irresponsible is the Jerusalem Post?

We're agreed on the Strait of Hormuz. But it seems you're asking for an almost impossible level of proof before doing anything to Iran. What if their style isn't to parade missiles in front of everybody but slip a nuclear weapon to one of their terrorist clients? And when it comes to letting them "do something," it doesn't take a lot if that "something" is nuclear. It's not a game of destructive simplicity. I just want to make sure I'm talking to people who would, at least theoretically, be willing to go the military route. And that includes not narrowing the goal posts so much as to make military action virtually impossible because you're of the belief that Israel or the U.S. wants it to come to that. Because, if it does, it will be Iran who pushes it to that point.

Sorry but that makes no sense.
According to the best intelligence estimates, 2007, 2010 and currrent , Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. All the people calling for war seem to elide this fact. Talk about credibility. They have none. The people calling for war seem to be living in a fact free world when it comes to this. They want war. Period.

The same people who lied us into war into Iraq are trying to do so into Iran. Once again, into the breach!!

If Iran attacks the United States, the United States will destroy Iran. Everyone knows that. It's unquestioned. The question is why are some people so eager to attack a country which has not attacked us? It's like we're living in a surreal world where this quote never existed.

"War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

The sanctions clearly failing.

Report: India Cancels Iran Oil Shipment Due To Sanctions

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/02/us-shipping-iran-india-idUSTRE8210I820120302

The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg interviews President Obama over Iran.



And he actually gives an argument for why Iran going nuclear armed would be a disaster. I'll admit, it's eloquent and logical. You can poke holes in it, but this is much more to the point and realistic than the doomsday scare-mongering we've heard in the GOP debates.



Notice how this coincidentally comes out before Netanyahu makes his war-now! pitch next week. Makes me very hopeful that he will have Frosty's brass balls and tell him to calm the fuck down and don't bully our government into a war prematurely.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international...t-bluff/253875/

For the record, I really hope this war doesn't happen. But I'm honestly starting to believe that it's inevitable .

I don't think we're ever going to come to an agreement on this because of the following reasons:

1. Iran not having a nuclear weapons program at this moment does not mean it isn't working on it and could have nuclear weapons capability in only a few years. It's sitting on a sea of oil and it needs nuclear energy?

2. I do not believe those people you call "war hawks" actually want war. Only a madman wants war. I believe the fundamental difference between them and you is that war is simply one of several options they're willing to consider, while you seem to have taken that off the table a long time ago (if it was ever there at all) and wouldn't consider it no matter what Iran does.

3. Yes, war is an evil thing, but sometimes it's a necessary evil. To say that it's never warranted is simplistic, pie-in-the-sky nonsense.

"Every man, woman and child lives under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by accident, or miscalculation, or by madness. The weapons of war must be abolished before they abolish us" JFK

Iran wants nothing more than Nuclear weapons and even though I myself consider Ahmadinejad a joke and the Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei an old evil motherfucker we must not underestimate the fact that they are moving in directions which are actually quite frightening and the situation must be dealt with carefully...

I live in one of the most remote countries in the world here in New Zealand but this war, or potential war I should say, worries me. I respect the States for stepping up on a military front in some cases when no-one else would... But, I just wish that the States would leave it for once. I don't know. I can't think of a time when America hasn't been in some form of combat, I'm not trying to bring down America's efforts for world peace and while I read the news etc, I don't consider myself educated on world politics so I don't know. Just sick of getting de-sensitised to violence etc from war on the news!

1) It is not a crime to have a nuclear program. And it's not worth going to war over. And going to war because you think someone might have a capacity at some time in the future to start a nuclear weapons program is an extremely bad and immoral idea. You don't kill people because of what they might do.

2) Cheney, Rumsfeld, Kristol and others most certainly did want war. Post 9-11 the first thing they were trying to do is bend the US outrage towards an attack on Iraq. They created their own intelligence office to feed the President and others what they wanted to hear. Factual. You write as if Iran is blockading US ports or murdering US scientists and I am counseling no response. I have been clear that I believe the only justification for war and any other killing is self-defense. I am not willing to countenance the deaths of between another 100,000 to one million humans just so some neo-colonialists can play tough guy with other people's lives. That is the fundamental difference between me and people of that ilk.

3) Again, I don't think I or for that matter anyone else here wrote that war is never warranted. The quote references the initiation of aggressive war as a crime, which it is. Attacking a country which has not attacked you is criminal. Iran can't even protect its scientists from being murdered or its ships from being hijacked by a bunch of ragtag Somalis and some people are speaking of Iran as if it's the Third Reich. Ridiculous.

Lilo - You can't argue with someone who trusts another foreign government (acting in their own self-interests) over their own and would gladly commit to charity war for them.

Netanyahu Won't Attack Iran (Probably)

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/03/02/netanyahu_won_t_attack_iran?page=0,0

"Probably"? If someone could explain Israel's strategic attack plan,I might believe that an attack is more probable than not. However, as I posted elsewhere. I don't see how Israel can carry out such an attack without unacceptable losses.

Unless of course they're fully expecting somebody else to do the job for them.

Well, Saudi Arabia for one is a valued U.S. ally and Iran's biggest rival in the region. (The semitic Arabians and indo-european Iranians do not share bonds of kin or blood as far as I know.)

There's still 80,000 U.S troops in Iraq. Were Saddam Hussein still in power there could be problems but he's not.

Plus, Iran is also surrounded by hundreds of U.S. military bases in Afghansitan, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Qatar, Azerbaijan, Saudi, Iraq, etc..

If the U.S. even remotely dangles its toes in this conflict I don't forsee Israel having many problems on their end as far as running a few bombing missions goes.

Two things...

First, I think your comment that they are "neo-colonialists playing tough guy with people's lives" is based more on emotion than on reality.

Second, I'm not saying war is the answer right now. And I don't think anyone else is. I'm all for seeing if the sanctions, etc. does the job. But it's becoming more and more clear to me that you and some others here would only resort to military action against Iran once they had nuclear weapons AND used them. In other words, nothing short of a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv or a terrorist detonating a bomb in some U.S. or European city could happen before you'd finally say, "Well, OK, maybe we should deal with this."

My modest proposal in the event that an Iranian program for developing nuclear weapons continues:

1. Calculate (as best as possible) the financial cost of a war with Iran, including cost of occupation, rebuilding, etc.

2. Double it- in fact- triple it- because the cost of human lives of all sides never seems to make the cost/benefit analysis.

3. Gather your allies and instruct it's time to ante up. Everyone has something at stake, especially the US and Israel, who will contribute the lion's share.

4. Approach Iran and put the cards on the table by saying, "Listen. We can tighten sanctions, life can get more miserable and dangerous each day, but if you agree to abandon your quest, we have a reservoir of cash, payable over 20 years. The funds must be applied to peaceful ends (food, public works, education, the arts, etc.).

5. Moreover, we will maintain regular UN inspections.

6. Payment will increase according to democratic reform that takes place within the country over 20 years. If these reforms occur on a scheduled basis, you'll get the whole pot, pluswe will further commit to reducing our nuclear arsenal (along with the other nuclear nations). If not, you will get a negotiated percentage.

7. As an added condition of the annuity, oil production and exports must continue at a level deemed fair and appropriate.

Yes, this wouldn't be popular, but it's pretty much how we're dealing with North Korea. It's buying a measure of security, stability and peace, the price of which is determined by the extent of the threat. While the present Iranian regime would certainly not agree to democratic reform, the possibility is real that another cry for freedom will come from the Iranian people in the coming years. Can the Arab Spring be in its infancy?

Also, this would not likely be a popular solution here either with people complaining why we're investing in an oppressive regime when we're having financial shortages domestically. Yet they'd have no problem fighting another long war on a credit card.

Finally, under the scenario it is imperative that we use the 20 years to build a bond, foster friendships, and commit to peace and justice in the region.

Anyone else find it a little annoying that we've come to the point where we basically have to pay certain countries to behave? It's like they're extorting us. And how much benefit to do the people of North Korea get from our aid?