‘US to Iran: In case of Israeli strike, don’t fire on our bases’

Originally posted by Neocrusader
Hmm wonder if they fall for that one

"if you get attacked, it won't be us.............honest. So don't retaliate against our ships and bases"
Then once your ranged retaliation is destroyed through 'shock and awe' ( just a new name for blitzkrieg ! )
"yeah it was us haha, we tricked you"

It would make sense. Moreoever it doesn't mention anything about 'post pre-emptive' actions

The United States has no intention of joining in a preemptive Israeli strike on Iran

Originally posted by Terminal1
Why does "false flag" come to mind?

One has to be very careful when dealing with or angering Israel...

why a false flag?

Originally posted by Terminal1
Seems like a setup for a False Flag to me...

Of course I am suspicious of anything Israel.

really? no one responded to your first false flag BS post, so you HAD to post again?

leave it alone.

reply to post by TheOneElectric


The way that I see it is without US support Israel will get hit hard. If Israel has a significant loss of civilian life they will be backed into a corner. They have nuclear missiles and know how to use them. If they get hit hard they will launch nuclear missiles to destroy Iran. Iran has no way to stop incoming missiles of this generation. This would be the beginning of a regional or even worldwide nuclear exchange.

This is why you really do want the US to keep it conventional.

Originally posted by jcarpenter

Originally posted by Foppezao

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
The key question here being over looked is how will the US respond if Iran retaliates against Israel and causes significant destruction?

A nice Dolphin would have turned Iran into a couple of lakes

somewhere during/afterwards

edit on 3-9-2012 by Foppezao because: (no reason given)

Suppose a dolphin-like asset turns Israel and/or Washington D.C. into a glass parking lot?

I don't believe they re even c close to such a second strike capability, a warhead, delivery vehicle and launching it below the sea surface

reply to post by TheOneElectric


From your OP:

In recent days, senior administration officials reportedly sent messages to Iran, through diplomats from two European states, addressing the possibility that Israel would launch a unilateral strike and establishing that the US expects Iran to not draw it into a conflict by firing on American army bases and aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf.

I took special attention to this part.

The main reason for my interest in this paragraph is mostly due to the capability - or lack of it - of Israel attacking Iran's nuclear sites.

A division must be made in order to understand the real issue. There are two groups of nuclear facilities in Iran:

- Disclosed and accessible facilities to the IAEA/U.N. inspections, labelled as secured.
- Secret military/nuclear facilities who raise concerns in Israel/West about possible intentions of developing nuclear weapons.

For the first group, Israel can attack on their own. Most of those facilities are at a surface level and could be taken by a simple air-strike with any of the bombs that Israel currently has(I assume).

However, those same facilities aren't considered to be a risk.

The second group of facilities are the ones who raise concerns about what Iran might be - or not - developing inside. And for that second group you have both surface and underground facilities.

That's where this toy comes into play:

The Massive Ordinance Penetrator (MOP) GBU-57A/B is a U.S. Air Force massive, precision-guided, 30,000-pound (13,608 kg) "bunker buster" bomb. This is substantially larger than the deepest penetrating bunker busters previously available, the 5,000-pound (2,268 kg) GBU-28 and GBU-37.

Recent development

On 7 April 2011, the USAF ordered eight MOPs plus supporting equipment for $28 million.

On 14 November 2011, Bloomberg reported that the Air Force Global Strike Command started receiving the Massive Ordnance Penetrator and that the deliveries "will meet requirements for the current operational need". The Air Force now has received delivery of 16 MOPs as of November 2011. And as of March 2012, there is an "operational stockpile" at Whiteman Air Force Base.

In 2012, the Pentagon requested $82 million to develop greater penetration power for the existing weapon.

Source

It is said that these MOP's are the only bombs capable of piercing Iran's nuclear facilities defenses. Also one of the reasons mentioned for the lack - until now - of an Israel attack, despite of their aggressive and assertive rhetoric towards Iran.

This scenario raises another point:

It is intended that the bomb will be deployed on the B-2 bomber, and will be guided by the use of GPS.

Northrop Grumman announced a $2.5-million stealth-bomber refit contract on 19 July 2007. Each of the U.S. Air Force's B-2s is to be able to carry two 14-metric-ton MOPs.

(From the same source)

Israel doesn't have any B-2 bombers, which are the aircraft meant to transport and deliver these bunker buster bombs. The only cheaper alternative would be to use B-52 bombers, the only other aircraft capable of carrying these bombs. But again, Israel doesn't have any B-52's either.

...which - again- raises another question:

If Israel is currently unable to striking the facilities, even if it want to, without the U.S. assistance, how can Israel say that they will pursue the military option, and the U.S. say that they won't assist, going as far as asking Iran to not retaliate if Israel attacks?

From the article you get the idea that the U.S. is putting some distance between them and what Israel might do, but if you look closer, Israel won't be able to do anything without U.S. military equipment, bombers or bombs.

Adding to that the fact that the bomber used to deliver the new MOP bombs is a stealth bomber, and it's not unreasonable to assume that the U.S. could assist Israel in a possible attack, but in secret and under the table.

The U.S. might be trying to clear the possibility of this strike escalating into a larger conflict, but it seems that while they are trying to wash their hands, they are also admitting they will be part of it.

Unless Israel has found a way to do it on their own, without U.S. assistance. And currently, there is no information about that.

Important update:

While doing some more research on this subject, I came across the following news article:

TOLEDO, Ohio (Reuters) - The White House on Monday denied an Israeli newspaper report that accused Washington of secretly negotiating with Tehran to keep the United States out of a future Israel-Iran war.

The Jewish state also played down the front-page report in its biggest-selling daily, Yedioth Ahronoth, which followed unusually public disagreement between the allies about how to tackle Iran's controversial nuclear program.

"It doesn't make sense," the official said. "There would be no need to make such a promise to the Iranians because they realize the last thing they need is to attack U.S. targets and draw massive U.S. bombing raids."

Source

It appears that the U.S. is completely on the Israeli side on the whole issue.

I raise the question:

Was this rumor spread on purpose in order for a Senior Official to state publicly " (...) the last thing they need is to attack U.S. targets and draw massive U.S. bombing raids"?

Seems like a very objective threat/warning being sent to Iran.

Originally posted by Dizrael

Originally posted by Terminal1
Why does "false flag" come to mind?

One has to be very careful when dealing with or angering Israel...

why a false flag?

Originally posted by Terminal1
Seems like a setup for a False Flag to me...

Of course I am suspicious of anything Israel.

really? no one responded to your first false flag BS post, so you HAD to post again?

leave it alone.

Lay off the sauce... it is giving you double vision.

reply to post by TheOneElectric


Not sure how I feel about this story.... If the United States is telling this to Tehran it must mean that Israel is close to attacking... Ultimately, this is a conflict that no one wants, so im hoping that by USA telling Tehran this, it will postpone any action that Israel was considering taking...

Both sides just need to sit down and talk it out like adults... I know its easier said than done, but come on, what good will war do for the region??? None...

reply to post by TheOneElectric


Are the US really expecting leniency after all those innocent, unarmed men, women and children who lost their lives by carpet bombing thought out the last 60 years? I hate war but looking at it from their perspective I wouldn't miss out on the chance to take out a few US bases and give as an excuse like " Oooops we miss-calculated...sorry". What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Have I missed the part where as a secret muslim Obama wishes for the destruction of the jewish state - doesnt seem that way.

If Iran fires on our bases its over for them, they know that. This is just political speak trying to distance us from responsibility for arming and otherwise supporting Isreal.

I think If I lived there I would immigrate somewhere else as I truly believe a serious war is only a matter of time.

reply to post by AaronWilson


The whole problem I have is that I believe this statement to be a lie since Obama is already on record telling Israel to 'wait to strike Iran until after the elections'. This statement in your OP is little more than a ploy to increase support for Obama and you can bet money he will go back on his word the second he gets re elected!

This has all earmarks of the U.S. playing the victim again as an excuse to get into a war.

This a page right out of old Abe Lincolns playbook.

so just recap how this works and make sure i have it straight in my mind:

if iran attacks isreal we join in to protect our ally.
if our ally attacks iran and iran retailates by attacking us and our ally we play the innocent victim of a an unjust attack and we join in the fight. sure we armed our ally, helped them plan the attack, and gave them a nudge and a wink but we`re just an innocent victim of your unjust retailiation.

This can be summed up in this scenario:

A guy walks up to another guy and tells him he's gotta problem with him. The other guy says I am not going to throw any punches, but if you do, I am going to come back swinging.

At that point the first guys buddy comes over and hands the first guy some brass knuckles and a baseball bat and says to the second guy. ' Excuse me....if you guys go at it I have nothing to do with this, let it be known. Also, since I have nothing to do with this, don't come after me as I am going to just stand off to the side and watch like an innocent bystander. Thank you. You guys can duke it out now.'


Story summed up.

Originally posted by TheOneElectric
(Yes, another Israel thread from yours truly. I don't think I've made more than 10. I swear I'm not antisemitic...shame I have to preface this thread.)

Washington tells Tehran that it will not join in an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear program, Yedioth Ahronoth reports

The United States has no intention of joining in a preemptive Israeli strike on Iran and expects the Islamic Republic to refrain from attacking US targets in the case of such an attack, senior Washington officials told their Iranian counterparts, according to a report in Yedioth Ahronoth on Monday. In recent days, senior administration officials reportedly sent messages to Iran, through diplomats from two European states, addressing the possibility that Israel would launch a unilateral strike and establishing that the US expects Iran to not draw it into a conflict by firing on American army bases and aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf. Monday’s report came amid widespread debate over the level of coordination between Israel and the US on halting Iran’s nuclear program, which — despite assurances by US Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro on Sunday that the relationship is as good as ever — appeared to be strained. While Israel has warned that the Iranians are quickly approaching a potential weapons capability and that the use of force must be seriously considered, the US says sanctions and international diplomacy must be given more time to work.

I have to give it to the Obama admin and the current pentagon staff. They are looking out for the US before anyone else. We really can't afford to "have our bro's back" in every single instance. Sometimes nations have to fight their own battles (or, let's try this novel idea...not fight..strange, right?)

Things are looking up for the US day by day. Maybe we actually may break away from a staunch support of Israel sometime soon.

www.timesofisrael.com...

As a guy who loathes the Obama Administration...I must say the man has won back at least a portion of the respect I once had for him...and even more so because this has been his consistant stance towards Israel for some time now. I practically wept tears of joy when he told Netanyahu that he is in favor of the 1967 borders.

Quite frankly....had Obama not ushered in all the martial law legislation in 2011-12 I would still be voting for him this fall.

Originally posted by Tardacus
This has all earmarks of the U.S. playing the victim again as an excuse to get into a war.

This a page right out of old Abe Lincolns playbook.

so just recap how this works and make sure i have it straight in my mind:

if iran attacks isreal we join in to protect our ally.
if our ally attacks iran and iran retailates by attacking us and our ally we play the innocent victim of a an unjust attack and we join in the fight. sure we armed our ally, helped them plan the attack, and gave them a nudge and a wink but we`re just an innocent victim of your unjust retailiation.

Huh?

Granted...the PERFECT scenario would be that we start commencing pre-emptive strikes on Israel later this evening...but this is still better than nothing.

At the very least we have stopped Israel from just going ahead and bombing Iran and dragging us into war without our real consent. There is no way in HELL that Iran would strike us when we made a very public statement like that.

Of course...there IS always the possibility of a false flag...so we must remember that.

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by AaronWilson

 

The whole problem I have is that I believe this statement to be a lie since Obama is already on record telling Israel to 'wait to strike Iran until after the elections'. This statement in your OP is little more than a ploy to increase support for Obama and you can bet money he will go back on his word the second he gets re elected!

edit on 4-9-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)

Where is that statement "On the record?" Do you have a link? I know he told the Russians to practice patience w/ our idiotic missile defense systems near their borders until after the elections...but I had not heard him tell Israel to wait until after elections to strike Iran.

Originally posted by mideast
It is very good that I see American people do not want another baseless war.

I tell the people in Iran about this fact

Please do.

Many of us are all ALL IN FAVOR of Iran pursuing nuclear power and the dissolution of the Israeli government. You wouldn't know it from watching our media or what passes for "news" in this country...but please understand that the United States is not any longer a "free country" in any sense of the word.

We haven't had an honest Presidential election in 12 years...and quite possibly since our CIA murdered JFK in broad daylight.

If and when the Israelis decide to really hit Iran (looks like sometime this year), it is a pipe dream at best to think that the USA will not get involved.

Obama or not.

Mitt Romney the Zionist would say exactly the opposite...he actively wants war with Iran.

So you are telling me that I can totally fund, train, arm, etc, a group and they can make an attack on you and then I can stand back and say I have nothing to do with it?

Isn't that the exact justification that the Axis used to make sub attacks on our naval convoys? We were aiding their enemy so therefore enemies as well?

The moral of the story is, that if we hadn't been funding, training, arming, etc, they wouldn't be in a position to make any offensive strikes in the first place.

On the other hand, I have been waiting so long for an Iran war, that I am of the mindset that it may never actually happen. I almost wonder if the Iran issue is a decoy/distraction from all of the other "smaller issues" that go mostly unnoticed.