"* RATTLES SABER IN MOCK AIR RAID theRAN THREATENS 'STRONG BLOW'*UN BIG WARNS OF MIDEAST WAR

June 21, 2008 -- Fears of the Mideast erupting into a "fireball" of war rose sharply yesterday after US officials confirmed that Israel had sent waves of warplanes on a practice run for a massive attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

The Israeli show of strength, conducted earlier this month over Greece and the eastern Mediterranean, was impossible for Iran to miss and demonstrated the country's ability to carry out a long-range bombing attack, officials said.

More than 100 Israeli F-16s and F-15s were deployed in the maneuver, flying roughly the distance from Israel to a key Iranian target. The exercise included refueling tankers and helicopters capable of rescuing downed pilots. "


Now my biggest fear is that in between iran and israel lies (well, floats..) american airspace.
I'm certain that it will imply culpability if that space is violated should that raid take place.

very messy.

jeez, with all the real problems we have it stuns me people are dicking around with this cowboys-and-indians stuff. yes, bomb iran! and then our situation will have... totally not improved. ::)

i'm just starting to think these folks get off on war for its own sake.

Hurt pride is what Iran's going to feel if Israel bombs their nuke facilities.  If it doesn't ignite WWIII, it will certainly goad Iran into a vengeful mindset.  Neither will be good for humanity. 

Why doesn't Israel just bomb France's nukes?  France has a lot more of 'em to bomb and while they only have half the Muslims Iran does, they've got twice the number of anti-semites!
:P

Hurt pride is what Iran's going to feel if Israel bombs their nuke facilities.  If it doesn't ignite WWIII, it will certainly goad Iran into a vengeful mindset.  Neither will be good for humanity. 


Not necessarily.

The Israelis bombed Syria's reactor a few months ago, and nobody whispered a peep.  Syria said "Reactor?  What reactor?", and buried the rubble under tons of dirt, but not before surveillance satellites did sufficient bomb damage assessment to confirm that the pictures of the interior were accurate. 

Granted, this was a reactor that the Syrians were had done a pretty good job of hiding in plain sight, and the Iranian reactors are public knowledge.  Furthermore, much like the Iraqi reactor targeted at Osirak a couple decades ago, the Syrian reactor hadn't been loaded with fuel (although I speculate that the Syrian one was probably very close to being capable of being loaded with fuel), and there was therefore no risk of release of contaminants into the surrounding countryside. 

The same can't be said for all of the Iranian facilities being targeted in Osirak III, although you could delay the Iranians for a few years by bombing the centrifuges and fuel processing plants while leaving the reactors intact.  That'd be a fair tradeoff; they get to keep the reactors as long as they don't have any means of doing anything interesting with the fuel.  The Russians might even turn a blind eye to such a tactic, because taking out Iran's enrichment facilities would leave the Iranians with a bunch of relatively harmless reactors, but no way to fuel them short of buying LEU from Russia.  It's not so much the Iranians' reactors (although there are things that can be done there, it's hard to get away with it), it's the fuel cycle (specifically the enrichment, processing, and potential for postprocessing) that constitutes the bulk of proliferation risk. 

Geopolitically, Syria is a world away from Iran.  Syria's a small cat.

Not to worry.  Iran will vigorously defend itself, by using its extensive fleet of F-14 Tomcat fighters.

Not to worry.  Iran will vigorously defend itself, by using its extensive fleet of F-14 Tomcat fighters.


Heh heh! Uncle Sam and Uncle Izzy will blow them outta the sky like taking candy from a baby!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/08/quickdraw.gif

^true, but do we have any choice but to get on that bandwagon?

Geopolitically, Syria is a world away from Iran.  Syria's a small cat.


Perversely enough, the Israelis were less likely to cause a fuss by bombing Iran before the invasion than after.

As it stands, if the Israeli fighters overfly Iraqi airspace, it'll be pretty obvious they're doing so with our consent.  Saddam probably couldn't have shot enough fighters down (and after the Israelis had taken out a few radar sites, may not have been able to track them).  Unfortunately for us, we can, and we'll be seen as having approved of the raid if we weren't to do so.

The US's best diplomatic option would be to take a neutral stance during the conflict.  Track, shadow, but do not engage, the Israeli fighters on the way in.  Humanitarian support only (that is, rescue choppers for pilots who eject, or the right to land at neutral airbases - you can go home, but your plane is now the property of whatever government owns the airbase) on the way out. 

Sort of a 2008 version of the Doolittle raid over Tokyo -- it's a one-way flight; everyone flies out, but even the luckiest flier knows he's gonna be walking home. 

All that said, a raid like this requires the element of surprise.  Osirak and the Syrian raid were conducted without any warning.  The widely-telegraphed exercises aren't consistent with a surprise strike.  I'm inclined to suspect that this is ultimately just saber-rattling.

Perversely enough, the Israelis were less likely to cause a fuss by bombing Iran before the invasion than after.

As it stands, if the Israeli fighters overfly Iraqi airspace, it'll be pretty obvious they're doing so with our consent.  Saddam probably couldn't have shot enough fighters down (and after the Israelis had taken out a few radar sites, may not have been able to track them).  Unfortunately for us, we can, and we'll be seen as having approved of the raid if we weren't to do so.

The US's best diplomatic option would be to take a neutral stance during the conflict.  Track, shadow, but do not engage, the Israeli fighters on the way in.  Humanitarian support only (that is, rescue choppers for pilots who eject, or the right to land at neutral airbases - you can go home, but your plane is now the property of whatever government owns the airbase) on the way out. 

Sort of a 2008 version of the Doolittle raid over Tokyo -- it's a one-way flight; everyone flies out, but even the luckiest flier knows he's gonna be walking home. 

All that said, a raid like this requires the element of surprise.  Osirak and the Syrian raid were conducted without any warning.  The widely-telegraphed exercises aren't consistent with a surprise strike.  I'm inclined to suspect that this is ultimately just saber-rattling.


Maybe the Israelis will take care of those sumbiches  by delivering some more uranium of their own to Iran.  You know... "Hey, you guys want enriched uranium?  Great, I'm gonna drop about 5 pounds of it on your doorstep.  Enjoy."

^true, but do we have any choice but to get on that bandwagon?


Yes.

Israel continues to state that it will not accept a nuclear armed Iran. Whilst the U.S has supported this viewpoint, apart from George doing his swashbuckling occasionally the U.S hasn't signed off on anything like what the Israeli's are planning.

Let Israel sort Iran out, they have more to worry about than we do. I'm sure the Iranians are perfectly capable of a SRBM but not an IRBM and thus I don't really care all that much. If the people getting killed are more than 2000 miles away, it's not all that much of a concern.

Let Israel sort Iran out, they have more to worry about than we do. I'm sure the Iranians are perfectly capable of a SRBM but not an IRBM and thus I don't really care all that much. If the people getting killed are more than 2000 miles away, it's not all that much of a concern.


I'll grant you that the best thing that could possibly happen to the region in terms of long term political stability would be for all sides to thoroughly glass each other, and for us to divvy up drilling rights on the glass-encapsulated oil fields with the Russians and Chinese as the radiation levels decay.

The risk to US interests is that long before they'll have even SRBM capability (requiring some degree of miniaturization), the Iranians will be capable of selling a CSIBM - Container-Ship Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, which could be built by any physics graduate student - to anyone crazy enough to set one off.

I'll grant you that the best thing that could possibly happen to the region in terms of long term political stability would be for all sides to thoroughly glass each other, and for us to divvy up drilling rights on the glass-encapsulated oil fields with the Russians and Chinese as the radiation levels decay.

i take it you dont know any iranians.

I'll grant you that the best thing that could possibly happen to the region in terms of long term political stability would be for all sides to thoroughly glass each other, and for us to divvy up drilling rights on the glass-encapsulated oil fields with the Russians and Chinese as the radiation levels decay.

The risk to US interests is that long before they'll have even SRBM capability (requiring some degree of miniaturization), the Iranians will be capable of selling a CSIBM - Container-Ship Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, which could be built by any physics graduate student - to anyone crazy enough to set one off.


Pretty much bang on the head. Iran is of no major concern, if they want to try and set off a device, go for it, the worst that will happen is that a chunk of desert becomes glass.


i take it you dont know any iranians.


I do. Well, actually, technically, he's an Afghan, but didn't stay there very long, what with the Soviet invasion and the mass slaughter and all.

I'm not advocating a nuclear attack on Iran, just pointing out, it really doesn't affect me.

i take it you dont know any iranians.


For the record, I know one who left the country during the Revolution, and a couple of Israelis to boot.  They're nice folks, and if they're vacationing at home when the fit hits the shan (unlikely for the Iranian one; the relatives who remained were killed shortly after the Revolution), I'll miss 'em.  Most of the Iranian youth are even more sick of their theocracy than we are.  They could have been valuable allies.  Still could be, if we could only get 'em riled up enough to overthrow the fundies without our having to get involved.  But, like everything else, we're not good at that sort of thing as we used to be.

But "in terms of long-term political stability" is not necessarily "the best thing for the people living there".  The region was destabilized in WW2, and both sides were used by the USA and USSR as proxies for gaining control of oil resources during the Cold War.  The "peace process" has been going on for longer than most of us have been alive, and to no avail.  Short of dusting off and nuking the site from orbit (it's the only way to be sure), what makes you think there can ever be peace in this region?

Israel has a tendency to act aggressively partially because it knows we will inadvertently support everything they do.

Ahmadinejad has a tendency to say anti-Semitic things because it helps distract his populace from his failures.

Personally, I often wonder if the world would be a better place if Israel and Iran would just go ahead and kill each other.

Whatever the case, we really need to move away from foreign oil and the Middle East overall.  We especially need to distance ourselves from Saudi Arabia.

Israel has a tendency to act aggressively partially because it knows we will inadvertently support everything they do.

Ahmadinejad has a tendency to say anti-Semitic things because it helps distract his populace from his failures.

Personally, I often wonder if the world would be a better place if Israel and Iran would just go ahead and kill each other.

Whatever the case, we really need to move away from foreign oil and the Middle East overall.  We especially need to distance ourselves from Saudi Arabia.

Unfortunately, anti-Semitism is a powerful force in a lot of the world.  I include the ultimately anti-Semitic Christian Right who want Armageddon to come and convert the Jews to Christianity, and send to hell the ones who won't convert!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/05/frog.gif

Unfortunately, anti-Semitism is a powerful force in a lot of the world.  I include the ultimately anti-Semitic Christian Right who want Armageddon to come and convert the Jews to Christianity, and send to hell the ones who won't convert!


Didn't Mel Brooks do a song-and-dance number about this? :=)

Didn't Mel Brooks do a song-and-dance number about this? :=)

Gospel according to Mel!
But when you think about it, Mel's more of an OT guy, I mean who else could write a character like God? 

"Here, kid, go to the top of the mountain, I wanna send you people a message.  It's etched on 100Kg clay tablets!"
"Wouldn't a pencil and paper be easier to carry back down..."
"Silence! You toad!  Who do you think you're talking to?"
:D

As to the mid-east, maybe the world needs to back out, and let them fight it out in one big slugfest. The one left standing wins.


Yeah, but you know if that happens, the rest of the world will get dragged into it one way or another.  :-\\

Personally, I often wonder if the world would be a better place if Israel and Iran would just go ahead and kill each other.
http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=2614

i agree with most of your post but this sorta upset me, as i know both at least one israeli and one iranian and find the prospect of them killing each other quite sucky.

Yeah, but you know if that happens, the rest of the world will get dragged into it one way or another.  :-\\


But it'll probably end up that way anyways.  At least this way we get it over with sooner, rather than later.

It's sorta like how we never really finished World War I, and the end result was the greater bloodshed of World War II.  The Middle East is merely the lingering unfinished business of World War II (the Arab countries were never de-Nazified in the way that Europe was) combined with the unfinished business of the Cold War (during which the Israelis and Saudis flew F-15s, the Iranians flew F-5s and F-14s, and mostly everyone else flew MiG or Sukhoi fixed-wing aircraft and Hind helicopters.  Even the Afghans, who had nothing to fly, took plenty of potshots at MiGs, Sukhois, and Hinds using our Stinger missiles.  You know, like in Rambo III, that movie where Sly Stallone helps a repressed minority fight for religious freedom agains tthe Godless Russian Communists... :-)

I've made this wisecrack before, but here's the source of it:  Back in my college years, I once drunkenly jested with a friend that the Cold War wouldn't really be over until the USA, USSR, and Red China agreed to dispose of their nuclear arsenals... by launching a simultaneous joint strike on the Middle East, leaving nothing alive from the Eastern Sahara to the Indian border.  Tear off the band-aid and get it over with.  Dust off and nuke the site from orbit.  It's the only way to be sure.

I wish I'd seen anything in the intervening 15 years to change my mind. 

Regional MAD's not a good solution -- but it's a solution.  (Heh.  It's even a final one :=)  After sixty years of "peace process" and not a goddamn thing to show for it, can anyone seriously come up with a shred of evidence to indicate that it's going to end in anything less than genocide?  If it's going to end up that way anyways, why not just get it over with? 

But it'll probably end up that way anyways.  At least this way we get it over with sooner, rather than later.

It's sorta like how we never really finished World War I, and the end result was the greater bloodshed of World War II.  The Middle East is merely the lingering unfinished business of World War II (the Arab countries were never de-Nazified in the way that Europe was) combined with the unfinished business of the Cold War (during which the Israelis and Saudis flew F-15s, the Iranians flew F-5s and F-14s, and mostly everyone else flew MiG or Sukhoi fixed-wing aircraft and Hind helicopters.  Even the Afghans, who had nothing to fly, took plenty of potshots at MiGs, Sukhois, and Hinds using our Stinger missiles.  You know, like in Rambo III, that movie where Sly Stallone helps a repressed minority fight for religious freedom agains tthe Godless Russian Communists... :-)

I've made this wisecrack before, but here's the source of it:  Back in my college years, I once drunkenly jested with a friend that the Cold War wouldn't really be over until the USA, USSR, and Red China agreed to dispose of their nuclear arsenals... by launching a simultaneous joint strike on the Middle East, leaving nothing alive from the Eastern Sahara to the Indian border.  Tear off the band-aid and get it over with.  Dust off and nuke the site from orbit.  It's the only way to be sure.

I wish I'd seen anything in the intervening 15 years to change my mind. 

Regional MAD's not a good solution -- but it's a solution.  (Heh.  It's even a final one :=)  After sixty years of "peace process" and not a goddamn thing to show for it, can anyone seriously come up with a shred of evidence to indicate that it's going to end in anything less than genocide?  If it's going to end up that way anyways, why not just get it over with? 


I would guess that you'll be proved right.
Dave Mustaine already called it - "Rest assured there'll be no more Middle eastern crisis, Hell there'll be no more Middle east."