Is Israel preparing to attack Iran?

Is Israel preparing to attack Iran?

www.washingtonpost.com

Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June — before Iran enters what Israelis described as a “zone of immunity” to commence building a nuclear bomb. Very soon, the Israelis fear, the Iranians will have stored enough enriched uranium in deep underground facilities to make a weapon — and only the United States could then stop them militarily.

(visit the link for the full news article)

It's looking more and more likely that either Israel or the US will try and bomb Iranian nuclear sites sometime in 2012. The consequences of doing so are profound. Fuel prices will soar and the threat of a more widespread conflict is very real. Both Russia and China have essentially declared they will back Iran if Israel or the United States strikes Iran.

www.washingtonpost.com (visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 2-2-2012 by Drew99GT because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-2-2012 by Drew99GT because: (no reason given)

if this should happen..then it will be the worst year ever

Full article here so you don't have to sign up.

"Is Israel preparing to attack Iran?
By David Ignatius, Thursday, February 2, 8:42 AM

BRUSSELS

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has a lot on his mind these days, from cutting the defense budget to managing the drawdown of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. But his biggest worry is the growing possibility that Israel will attack Iran over the next few months.

Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June — before Iran enters what Israelis described as a “zone of immunity” to commence building a nuclear bomb. Very soon, the Israelis fear, the Iranians will have stored enough enriched uranium in deep underground facilities to make a weapon — and only the United States could then stop them militarily.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu doesn’t want to leave the fate of Israel dependent on American action, which would be triggered by intelligence that Iran is building a bomb, which it hasn’t done yet.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak may have signaled the prospect of an Israeli attack soon when he asked last month to postpone a planned U.S.-Israel military exercise that would culminate in a live-fire phase in May. Barak apologized that Israel couldn’t devote the resources to the annual exercise this spring.

President Obama and Panetta are said to have cautioned the Israelis that the United States opposes an attack, believing that it would derail an increasingly successful international economic sanctions program and other non-military efforts to stop Iran from crossing the threshold. But the White House hasn’t yet decided precisely how the United States would respond if the Israelis do attack.

The Obama administration is conducting intense discussions about what an Israeli attack would mean for the United States: whether Iran would target U.S. ships in the region or try to close the Strait of Hormuz; and what effect the conflict and a likely spike in oil prices would have on the fragile global economy.

The administration appears to favor staying out of the conflict unless Iran hits U.S. assets, which would trigger a strong U.S. response.

This U.S. policy — signaling that Israel is acting on its own — might open a breach like the one in 1956, when President Dwight Eisenhower condemned an Israeli-European attack on the Suez Canal. Complicating matters is the 2012 presidential campaign, which has Republicans candidates clamoring for stronger U.S. support of Israel.

Administration officials caution that Tehran shouldn’t misunderstand: The United States has a 60-year commitment to Israeli security, and if Israel’s population centers were hit, the United States could feel obligated to come to Israel’s defense.

Israelis are said to believe that a military strike could be limited and contained. They would bomb the uranium-enrichment facility at Natanz and other targets; an attack on the buried enrichment facility at Qom would be harder from the air. Iranians would retaliate, but Israelis doubt that the action would be an overwhelming barrage, with rockets from Hezbollah forces in Lebanon. One Israeli estimate is that the Jewish state might have to absorb 500 casualties.

Israelis point to Syria’s lack of response to an Israeli attack on a nuclear reactor there in 2007. Iranians might show similar restraint, because of fear the regime would be endangered by all-out war. Some Israelis have also likened a strike on Iran to the 1976 hostage-rescue raid on Entebbe, Uganda, which was followed by a change of regime in that country.

Israeli leaders are said to accept, and even welcome, the prospect of going it alone and demonstrating their resolve at a time when their security is undermined by the Arab Spring.

“You stay to the side, and let us do it,” one Israeli official is said to have advised the United States. A “short-war” scenario assumes five days or so of limited Israeli strikes, followed by a U.N.-brokered cease-fire. The Israelis are said to recognize that damage to the nuclear program might be modest, requiring another strike in a few years.

U.S. officials see two possible ways to dissuade the Israelis from such an attack: Tehran could finally open serious negotiations for a formula to verifiably guarantee that its nuclear program will remain a civilian one; or the United States could step up its covert actions to degrade the program so much that Israelis would decide that military action wasn’t necessary.

U.S. officials don’t think that Netanyahu has made a final decision to attack, and they note that top Israeli intelligence officials remain skeptical of the project. But senior Americans doubt that the Israelis are bluffing. They’re worrying about the guns of spring — and the unintended consequences."

reply to post by Drew99GT


can you provide articles or links to support this?

Both Russia and China have essentially declared they will back Iran if Israel or the United States strikes Iran.

I personally do not think they would, but hey, what do I know, On the other hand this thread was published not long ago; www.abovetopsecret.com... What do you think India will do if Israel attacks Iran. India is a nuclear power too.
en.wikipedia.org...

Man this is so messed up.

The soldiers they are going to send have blood in their veins.

The politicians who will send them have OIL in their veins, or religion.

What a twisted twisted world.

The self appointed thread police and wanna-be mods often jump topics like this that have been so debated and worn out time and time again.

Just guessing but... running an ATS search for 'Israel vs. Iran' might fill a day's worth of reading just for the OPs alone.

But... it's okay because I prefer multiple threads on topics than to see them snuffed out and referred to something dating to the Nixon administration

This from Drew99gt, has me worried:

U.S. officials see two possible ways to dissuade the Israelis from such an attack: Tehran could finally open serious negotiations for a formula to verifiably guarantee that its nuclear program will remain a civilian one; or the United States could step up its covert actions to degrade the program so much that Israelis would decide that military action wasn’t necessary.

I read that as meaning that Tehran had to open up everything within the next three months. (Odds on that, anyone?) Or, the US has to attack Iran significantly in a really sneaky way.

Am I missing something here?

The better and easier to answer question is: When is Israel NOT preparing to attack Iran........

Originally posted by SkyMuerte
The better and easier to answer question is: When is Israel NOT preparing to attack Iran........

edit on 2-2-2012 by SkyMuerte because: speeeeeling

Well said... simple, concise and streamlined...

reply to post by redoubt


This article was in today's Washington Post and it has fresh evidence from today's meeting of defense ministers in Brussels, Belgium as covered by David Ignatius who's traveling with Leon Panneta.

This is a suicide mission from all sides no matter if your an American supporter Israel supporter Russian supporter Chinese supporter, it is a suicide mission with a high probability that many will not be returning home.

>>>> insert commercial break here >back to news story

reply to post by Iamschist


www.bbc.co.uk...

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Originally posted by Drew99GT
reply to post by redoubt

 

This article was in today's Washington Post and it has fresh evidence from today's meeting of defense ministers in Brussels, Belgium as covered by David Ignatius who's traveling with Leon Panneta.

edit on 2-2-2012 by Drew99GT because: (no reason given)

I do genuinely appreciate and respect your concern but... we must take into account the way this issue has been played... nay, ladled upon us by the media and by propaganda efforts meant to divide public opinion.

In short, I am not trying to short-sheet your OP... but I do suggest that there will likely be many more of the same effort, the same honest intent, that will follow before any attack happens.

Apparently, the world is under a proverbial rock.

Iran and Israel are, and have been, at war for decades, now. It's an undeclared war, but you have to be blind not to see it, even through the rose-tinted glasses we tend to view foreign politics.

The article, however, misses the mark. You can have all the enriched uranium you need to make a nuclear weapon. It doesn't equate to a "immune" status. The uranium needs to be forged into the proper shapes necessary to allow them to achieve critical mass. Further, the components necessary to bring the uranium together to achieve critical mass must also be manufactured.

At which point - all you have is a nuclear 'bomb' - which could be construed to mean a nuclear warhead (although that depends upon the limitations of their design).

Then, comes the interesting challenge of bringing said bomb to its target. This is generally referred to as a delivery system. Given that this would be Iran's first nuclear weapon, and it would be likely to be primarily a uranium-fission weapon; it's likely to be very bulky for its yield.

Which rules out artillery, missiles, and tactical aircraft. Strategic bombers and trucks are about the only options they have after that - and they don't have any strategic bombers. They -might- be able to re-purpose a civilian airliner and detonate it over a city... but Israel will likely swat any suspicious airliner out of the sky (not to mention it would show up on satellites that track neutron emitters). Likewise with the truck.

Really, Iran is doing this in reverse. They need a valid delivery system before they go about building a bomb... but a lot of people don't seem to realize that this isn't WWII and there is no equivalent to the B-29 (which was, virtually, immune to interception at the time).

So, Israel isn't quite as pressured as the article makes it sound.

That said - Iran with a nuclear warhead (bulky, primitive, etc it may be) would be a less than desirable circumstance. And it would be prudent to prevent them from developing one.

reply to post by Iamschist


I do not think Russia or China have openly said that they will back Iran in case of attack. Russia has openly said to veto UN vote on Syria but beyond that have not promised anything.

Syria and Lebanan will openly declare war on Israel. Syria's involvement might have Egypt up the ante too. This and recent past terms might lead Turkey to join the muslim nations if not overtly.

India will keep on buying Iranian oil but do not have any capacity to take Iran's side. They also have very good terms with Israel, so Indians will keep on the sidelines.

Iraq might be of some help to Iran in terms of access to their lands to conduct warfare or war like actions.

For people who don't want to read..

For people who don't want to read..

reply to post by Aim64C


Once you have enriched uranium then making a bomb is matter of having a lab a size of a garage that can host 5 cars or so. Atleast that's what one article on nuclear safety issues in Russia mentioned. Infact, that article even mentioned that keeping two highly enriched uranium balls close by can result in a nuclear explosion of sort but yield might not be very efficient. One American program like Dateline or similar, once mentioned that taking two enriched balls and smashing them with force can create a nuclear reaction also. Iran has several missiles that can host a small weapon size nuke. Israel does have several good anti-missile technologies available to shoot a single missile down. Arrow, Iron Dome etc. come to mind right away. It would take a salvo attack for one or two to pass through.

Iran wants nukes to prevent any attack on itself by US NATO. Do not think they will do a mistake of using them on anybody. The whole world will react very strongly to that act.

Does this not read like a movie trailer?

Very soon, the Israelis fear, the Iranians will have stored enough enriched uranium in deep underground facilities to make a weapon — and only the United States could then stop them militarily.

except its no movie.
how many months and how many threads have we been arguing this topic.
Like a Broadway production, rehearsals, costumes, places everybody,
Cue the house lights in 5,4,3,2,curtains, action!!!
countries without remorse.
a war without end.