Cold comfort for the Israelis. Why not instead support them in striking against Iran's nuclear facilities? "According to the same source, the nuclear guarantee would be backed by a new and improved Israeli anti-ballistic missile system. The Bush administration took the first step by deploying an early-warning radar system in the Negev, which hones the ability to detect Iranian ballistic missiles." Not enough.
"Obama's atomic umbrella: U.S. nuclear strike if Iran nukes Israel," by Aluf Benn for Haaretz, December 11 (thanks to all who sent this in):
U.S. President-elect Barack Obama's administration will offer Israel a "nuclear umbrella" against the threat of a nuclear attack by Iran, a well-placed American source said earlier this week. The source, who is close to the new administration, said the U.S. will declare that an attack on Israel by Tehran would result in a devastating U.S. nuclear response against Iran.But America's nuclear guarantee to Israel could also be interpreted as a sign the U.S. believes Iran will eventually acquire nuclear arms.
Secretary of state-designate Hillary Clinton had raised the idea of a nuclear guarantee to Israel during her campaign for the Democratic Party's nomination for the presidency. During a debate with Obama in April, Clinton said that Israel and Arab countries must be given "deterrent backing." She added, "Iran must know that an attack on Israel will draw a massive response."
Clinton also proposed that the American nuclear umbrella be extended to other countries in the region, like Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, if they agree to relinquish their own nuclear ambitions.
According to the same source, the nuclear guarantee would be backed by a new and improved Israeli anti-ballistic missile system. The Bush administration took the first step by deploying an early-warning radar system in the Negev, which hones the ability to detect Iranian ballistic missiles.
Meanwhile, Obama said he would play the role of Aethelred the Unready and pay tribute to the mullahs to get them to drop their nuclear ambitions:
Obama said this week that he would negotiate with Iran and would offer economic incentives for Tehran to relinquish its nuclear program. He warned that if Iran refused the deal, he would act to intensify sanctions against the Islamic Republic.Granting Israel a nuclear guarantee essentially suggests the U.S. is willing to come to terms with a nuclear Iran. For its part, Israel opposes any such development and similar opposition was voiced by officials in the outgoing Bush administration.
"What is the significance of such guarantee when it comes from those who hesitated to deal with a non-nuclear Iran?" asked a senior Israeli security source. "What kind of credibility would this [guarantee have] when Iran is nuclear-capable?"...
Good question.
"...the nuclear guarantee would be backed by a new and improved Israeli anti-ballistic missile system."
It's called THAAD and it is courtesy of the US Army Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama. Advanced radar, etc. A close relative of mine performs Quality Assurance for this system, and wherever he/she goes, THAAD follows...Hawaii, Taiwan, Israel, etc.
Huh huh, Israel must be destroyed before the USA will lend a hand. Wow!
Great...so if Israel is destroyed and all its citizens are vaporized, we will then destroy Iran and vaporize those under the thumb of the Mullahs. Makes perfect since, of you're an Obamabot.
Most of us would rather drop a few regular bombs on Iran and not let them Nuke Israel. But that would be silly. Letting Israel be destroyed before destroying Iran makes much more since.
Hope...Change. The only change that Obama will bring is change from a solid to a vapor.
Islam is a lie and truth is killing it.
A friend of mine heard that the US would protect Israel. I was not sure what that meant until I read the piece on Foxnews.com about it. I thought to myself what a waste of effort when Israel could just bomb the sites. I guess Obama does not see the point of preemptive strikes for any reason but appears to be willing to clean up the mess. I think the words that come to mind are INSANE and CLUELESS. Have mercy.
I'm afraid the horse is out of the barn on this one: there are plenty of reasons why we can't start a war with Iran and they know it.
1) Retaliation on oil facilities; oil price shocks; coup de grace for the world economy
2) vulnerability of Iraq to destabilization.
3) US lack of geo-political coin in the wake of Iraq.
Frankly, this is one of the great tragedies of the stupid Iraq war--we've already spent the lives, national will, money, and international credibility that we should have retained for just this occasion. Alas, it's too late to get them back in time.
Deterrence it is for nuclear Iran. The good news is that America lived with a much larger threat for decades and managed to come through it.
I know, I know, Ahmadinejad is crazier than Kruschev-to-Gorbachev. But it does not appear that the mullahs are all quite as anxious to die as he is.
Aethelraed Unraed invoked? Have to love JW for its erudition, as well as for its relentless pursuit of the truth. Now to topic. Of all the scenarios, the least likely to unfold, I would argue, is Iran hitting Israel with a nuclear weapon. All bark and no bite. Still an asshole nation, though, as long as the religious zealots control it. Too bad the Persians ever gave up Zoroastrianism for Mo's creed.
It's not worth the Carbon it's written on.
Now, if it were a policy where say, any such use against Israel gets 57 Capitols vaporized, then you might have something worth the Ink.
mountainecho
I disagree.
How exactly would Iran attack a sufficient number of "oil facilities" to really harm the US directly?
Oil is quite low in price at the moment and falling due to a lack of economic activity world wide. Any increase due to a war with Iran would be short lived. As short lived as a war with Iran.
Iran is a paper tiger. Remember that we destroyed a re-armed Iraqi army in days, after Iran fought Iraq for 8 years to a stalemate, and only at the cost of millions of lives on the part of Iran.
Iraq is no longer as vulnerable to destabilization as it was when twits like Sadr had power. The Iraqi government is doing quite nicely despite what you may read in the MSM or glean from their liberal talking heads.
Lack of geo-political coin? The wake of Iraq? If you hadn't noticed, we are succeeding in Iraq. 'Kay? Iraq is free. What better coin than that. It's not a colony. It's not under occupation. It's free to kick us out at any moment, but they choose not to.
I do not see the sacrifices made by our troops to free the Iraqi people, (regardless of what they do with their freedom.) as stupid, nor would those that are serving there now. Check out some blogs by those serving. The vast majority do not share your limited view.
"Deterrence it is for nuclear Iran."
Sorry, that won't work for folks that want Armageddon to happen in order to facilitate the coming of the 12th Imam. Are you familiar with this subject? Apparently not or you'd know that if Iran has a nuke they will most certainly use it.
Imadinnajacket stated that he would gladly sacrifice 2/3?...3/4 of Iran to see Israel destroyed. Deterrence is not an option when dealing with those who love death.
Ahmadinejad is not the issue. Islam is. You forget that paradise awaits those that die in the fight to make Islam supreme. That's why those twits blow themselves up...get it?
Islam is a lie and truth is killing it.
A case for Condoleeeezzzza.....
Maybe it's only a symbolic gesture, but it is a powerful one. It signals to the world that Obama has taken official note of Nutjob's nuclear threats and is willing to stand beside Israel and commit us to her defense. Whether it will have any effect on Iran remains to be seen, but how could it not? Among other things it means that Iranian targets have been officially selected and entered into the appropriate launch data bases. In the world of diplomacy this is a big deal. Besides, anything that displeases the mullahs can only be judged as good.
The downside, of course, is that the same nuclear umbrella we'd be erecting over Israel would most likely give the U.S. leverage to inhibit Israel from launching any preemptive strike if it felt the need to do so, nuclear deterrence or not. This is a double edged sword.
Bad idea. It is doomed to fail. Iran hits Israel, US hits Iran, Russia and/or China hit US. North Korea will surely get one in as well on US. Who has our back?
NATO? Yeah right, there will be so much hand wringing, they will not respond. Maybe India? Probably not, as they will be tied up with Pakistan.
This proposal is too little, too late. Israel will get destroyed, one way or the other. Iran gives a device to a non-state entity (terrorists)to detonate. Who will we strike at then? Try going to our OIC controlled UN? More hand wringing.
There is one solution, take Iran out now!
It's not like they had a choice. Their capital was where Baghdad is today, and easily accessible by the Mohammedans, and once they were defeated there, the whole country was quickly and easily overrun, and several cities had major massacres. You can read more about that here.
http://www.historyofjihad.org/persia.html?syf=contact
Infidel Pride: Of course they had a choice---------live free or die, fight for what you believe in or persih. Conversion to Islam was the way of the weak. Also, ought to be careful with the article you provided a link to-----it suggests President Bush should have nuked a couple of Muslim cities after 9/11. Do you really think that is what Bush should have done? Think you would have done it had you been in the Oval Office instead? And I nonetheless still think it a shame the Persians have not remained Zoroastrians down to the present day. Magi instead of mullahs would be infinitely preferable.
it suggests President Bush should have nuked a couple of Muslim cities after 9/11. Do you really think that is what Bush should have done?
Posted by: Wellington at December 11, 2008 11:53 PM
President Bush is the leader of the "free world". He calls himself a "war president". After 9/11, Bush had many options to address Islam. This is what he chose: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010917-11.html
Ofcourse, this was just the start. He followed-up the above with:
- Stalling the 9/11 Commission.
- Removing references to Saudi Arabia from 9/11 interim report.
- Made Saudi Arabia and Pakistan 'allies' in the phony 'war on terror' (below).
- Lied about Iraq's involvement in 9/11 and attacked Saudi Arabia's sworn enemy under 'war on terror'.
- Lied to Americans, about getting Osama.
Today, Pakistan openly runs terror camps and threatns USA of withdrawing it's support in 'war on terror' and USA shivers. So, much for terrorist allies in the phony 'war on terror'.
Thanks Bush!
Israel should go for it. Neither Bush nor Obama have the guts to do what must be done. Israel however still has Olmert the loon calling the shots. Even if Bush stood out of the way (Bush is actually defending Iran by denying Israel access to Iraqi airspace), Olmert is another obstacle – another peacenik with no guts.
All seem to agree a nuclear Iran is an insane idea, and then they sit down and have a glass of wine and change the subject to whatever. Continuing on the present path will result in nuclear explosions, maybe a lot of them – the only question is where and when.
From: http://www.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/taheri200311140918.asp
"In a nuclear duel in the region, Israel may kill 100 million Muslims," Rafsanjani said in a speech in Tehran in October 2000. "Muslims can sustain such casualties, knowing that, in exchange, there would be no Israel on the map."
Lacking the decision to preemptively strike Iran, and eliminate its nuclear capability, even more ominous choices loom ahead.
The world has been openly warned how many Muslims the "moderate" Iranian leader, Rafsanjani, would sacrifice to eliminate Israel. And if the 9/11 attacks encouraged Muslim fanatics and jihadists, just image what a "successful" strike on Israel would do for recruitment. If Rafsanjani's statement is representative of what is acceptable for their cause, we need to find the threshold of pain and terror they find unacceptable, and let them know we are prepared to deliver it. If not in Israel's interest, then in our own. Because it's no secret that if the Little Satan is eliminated, the Great Satan will be next.
Of course deterrence, at any level, assumes that non-suicidal Muslims will be willing and able to stop the Armageddon seekers. And neither Iranian statements, nor the conflict between India and Pakistan provide a lot evidence for an Islamic survival instinct.
"In a nuclear duel in the region, Israel may kill 100 million Muslims," Rafsanjani said in a speech in Tehran..."Muslims can sustain such casualties, knowing that, in exchange, there would be no Israel on the map."
-- quote from RalphInfidel
Technically he's right, which is why Israel keeps its power dry at all times. However, Rafsanjani and Nutjob are both known for bravado statements like this, so no one is surprised when they make them. But to expand on his thread, one could probably counter with, yes, but it depends on which 100 million Muslims. If the Israelis are smart, and they are, then in invoking the Sampson option they would make sure that this would not be just a simple body count, but would include making sure that certain sites, such as Qom and whichever one has the well where the Mahdi is hiding, are turned into very large, very smooth patches of glass (not hard to do with all that sand) with radioactive half lives of 50,000 years.
But of course once Israel is vaporized there's no point in striking back. Al-Buraq sure is living up to his name. Undivided Jerusalem for Muslims only. The Holy Glass...
"Deterrence it is for nuclear Iran."
Destruction it should be for pre-nuclear Iran. We should vaporize those reactors just to test out the Rods from God. We have them. I'm trying to think of a historical analogy but this is just unparalled in its ridiculousness. I don't want to see heavy Iranian casualties because I honestly do hold out hope for Iran. This mess can be prevented today.
We should have invaded Iran and left Iraq for Israel. They took care of them back in the 80s in a matter of hours.
[I]t suggests President Bush should have nuked a couple of Muslim cities after 9/11. Do you really think that is what Bush should have done?
Posted by: Wellington at December 11, 2008 11:53 PM
Yes, it is exactly what should have been done. 10am, 9/11/01. Mecca and Medina. Cheap, easy, effective.
Nuclear deterrence depends on credibility. Does anyone believe that Hussein would respond in any effective way after Israel is nuked?
jdamn: So, if you had been President on 9/11 instead of Bush, on that day you would have nuked Mecca and Medina? Just for the record.
"jdamn: So, if you had been President on 9/11 instead of Bush, on that day you would have nuked Mecca and Medina? Just for the record.
Posted by: Wellington"
Wellington;
If jdamn is wise, he will not confirm. Why tell them who has sent them this type of destruction?
Not to speak for him, of course. I think he is in the right ballpark. We must adapt policys that allow for "instant" responce. Instead of them dancing and handing out candy, it should be duck and cover.
Islofob IS-1
FYI,jdamn is a lady. And yeah, I think she means it. She would've pulled the trigger.
Jdamn for president!
"But of course once Israel is vaporized there's no point in striking back."
Posted by: Beagle
I respectfully disagree. Even if Israel wouldn't benefit from it, there's the rest of the world to think about, and it doesn't cease to exist even if Israel does. Massive, overwhelming and devastating retaliation is the ONLY response to make if Israel is attacked.
Yes, I would have done it. I would have done it again in 5 years and any time in between if anyone ever tried to rebuild them. On second thought, I would have given them a couple of days to evacuate. The Saudi government would not have allowed anyone to leave alive, though, as that would constitute apostacy. But yes, I would glassify them. Utterly. It worked in Japan. It killed their death-cult ideology with the same Achilles' heel, the doctrine that says that their holy land cannot be harmed. Even if it didn't work with Islam it would still be worth it to bleed the Saudis. And yes, I would have been re-elected so that I could do it again in 5 years simply because I would have responded appropriately. Imagine if FDR could have nuked Nagasaki the day Pearl Harbor was bombed.
Islofob, I would play by their rules: destroy and then take responsibility.
There are some who post here who function in a world of make-believe. This is not acceptable. Get real, quick like. Over the top assertions do not help in any constructive way to combat the nefarious ideology which is Islam. Steady, informed and realistic strategy is key to defeating Islamic supremacism.
Does any informed thinker accept the notion that if anyone of are very finest Presidents (i.e., Lincoln, Washington, Reagan, Teddy Roosevelt, Truman {yes, Truman}, Jackson, Polk, Eisenhower) were in charge when 9/11 occurred, they would have nuked Mecca and Medina? I'm beginning to think that JW is becomning a forum for way too many amateurs who have no real understanding of how things really work. Damn it, asserting that Mecca and Medina should have been nuked right after 9/11 puts one in the category of the extremely marginal, to say the least. One knows this or should know it; there is no third alternative. Time to grow up.
Wellington, while there may be a certain amount of over-the-top hyperbole that one may be hard pressed to take literally in some of these posts, it's the underlying sentiments in the posts that are important. Not all the comments are framed and delivered in polished prose, but if you look beyond the language the real message of the posters, as I read them, is passionate support of Israel, appeals to defend her, and what should be done to those who harm her. It's expressed in many ways.
As to whether one should actually nuke Mecca and Medina, an elementary rule of diplomacy is that one doesn't make threats that are not credible, or you do not have the capacity to make good on, or the enemy is left in doubt about your sincerity and willingness to make good on the threat. My position on this particular issue is that it would be foolish to rule out any options, either publicly or privately, even if you have no intentions of carrying them out.
Many posters here have wondered whether the U.S. the expansion of the nuclear umbrella to include Israel satisfies these basic requirements. Time will tell, but the thing to watch for now is tell-tale changes in Iran's behavior or public, statements from Ahmadinejad, or any of the other ME players, like PA or Hamas. They'll bluster about it, of course, but the important thing is what they do, more than what they say. Obama's move was a dangerous one, because if the opposition decides he's bluffing and decides to call us on it, what then? It's discussions about this stage of the game where one finds comments about target selection.
If you nuke me I will nuke you .If you kill me I will kill you....... cannot find more stupid than this idea.
I don't think Israel is going to buy this deal.
Obama is like the banks ,they lend you an umbrella
but they take it back when it rains.
"If you nuke me I will nuke you .If you kill me I will kill you....... cannot find more stupid than this idea.
I don't think Israel is going to buy this deal."
Posted by: Tartine
This was the essence of the Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD, aptly named) doctrine in place for 40 years, though. And it worked.
There's a difference here, though. The confrontation between the U.S. and the Soviet Union was more or less symmetric, a Mexican Standoff. The current situation is different. Although the Israelis are rightly concerned because their existence is at stake, in the geopolitical game that has to be played they aren't the only ones involved. In the cold calculus of nuclear diplomacy, one of the considerations that will be folded into the equation is whether the loss of Israel is worth jeopardizing the lives of Europeans or Americans. This is the real nub of the matter for planners, and, disgusting and unprincipled that it is, you can be sure it is one of the risk factors that the geopolitical bean counters fold into their calculations.
My take on this is that the best overall course of action for us is to do whatever is necessary to ensure Iran does not get the bomb, and if it appears that they are on the verge of being able to field a weapon, to destroy it by an whatever means are necessary. Maybe (I don't know, but I'd like to think) that this is Obama's advancing a pawn he needs to protect the Queen before he pounces with his bishop to checkmate.
With all of this, we should be working at the same time to organize and support an Iranian democratic revolution that overthrows the mullahs. We did it before in 1954. It didn't stick then, thanks to Djimmy Carter, but the global "correlation of forces" (one of the Soviet concepts that is actually pretty useful) have changed since then. Maybe it will this time. Just be sure to keep Jimmy Carter out of the loop.
jdamn;
Sorry, forgive my error on the gender. As far as your approach, I say it's good for them to know you are not yet in a position to take action.
As of yet.
If their attacks continue, we will elect leaders that will be bold, and take direct action just as you offer, they should take your words as a warning of things to come. Good for you to speak your mind, I hope islam has noted it.
Wellington,
With all respect, you state some posts here to be over the top. Remember, Obama is in the lead here, and with a threat of nuclear attack on Iran, and he will be our next president.
I'm all for a steady, informed direction, when dealing with a foe that holds reason and hopes for the same. We may find ourselves running out of time, if our enemy has taken our attempts to reason and outreach as weakness.
Islam must understand we will not bow. We will fight if they awake this nation, and to keep what we have always had, and have never lived without. I see no reason to survive if we must seed this nation, or this world to islam. Others may be willing to accept life under it, but thats for them to decide.
We are not there yet, but the words of mine and others here should serve a stark warning to our want-to-be enemy.
They have not crossed the line, I pray for them they never do.
I just think that 9/11 was the day that Islam became intolerable to decent human beings. That was the day it should have ended. The Muslim world would be thanking us, not immediately, but eventually. There would be no retaliation because they would know that we meant business and that we would destroy anyone who messed with us or our allies without risking our own asses. We should have done it in 1948 when the Jews were expelled. That was the beginning of the Islamic Cold War. It stopped being a Cold War when war was declared on us, unequivocally. It's not worth an investigation into who did it. Islam did it. Islam must end. I am not being over-the-top, hyperbolic, or melodramatic. The Muslim world should have been told that Islam is no longer acceptable that day.