How About Discussing An Important, Meaningful Issue?

[Guest]

There have been many articles published in the last several weeks opining that the probability that Israel will attack Iran is very high. One of the leading Israeli journalists was interviewed on Fareed Zakaria's Global Public Square program this morning and confirmed that his contacts with the government suggests that an attack on Israel will be ordered by Bibi Netanyahu and Ehud Barak, probably within weeks. Any such attack is admitted to have only a slowing effect on the Iranian nuclear weapon program. Most experts admit that Iran will have nuclear weapons within a few years. An Israeli attack would only slow their progress by from 18-36 months.

The journalist opined that there was some popular support among the Jewish people, somewhat less among the Israeli Knesset. Many of the more thoughtful Jews know that an attack will almost certainly cause "rockets to rain down on Israel and a land war likely to begin". Many fear that such an attack will cause what have been disjointed enemies of Israel and the United States to coalesce. That would include the more militant Islamic groups--Hamas, al Quaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood--as well as groups which oppose Israel and the U.S., but until now have conducted themselves with some neutrality. Iran would counter-attack, of course. But Syria and Egypt, both with major military forces could join them. Turkey, the only NATO member in the region would not be expected to enter the fray. Most pundits agree that the U.S. will be blamed as complicit in any attack by Israel, whether or not that is true. A dramatic ramp-up of Islamic terrorism within the U.S. and against U.S. citizens and installations worldwide is expected to result.

From Israel's point-of-view, their militant political leaders believe they have no choice, that continued diplomacy and international sanctions without the cooperation of Russia and China is not slowing Iranian nuclear weapons development. Both Netenyahu and Barak played important roles in the military leadership of Israel's successful attack on Egypt, Syria and Jordan in 1967 that lead to the Six Day War. In essence, they've done it before and they believe they can be successful militarily again. They believe that Israel has the military power to prevail against any circumstances if they attack Iran. Some experts are far less certain of that. Some believe that Israel will attack, expecting that the U.S. will support them militarily if they find that their military estimates were overly optimistic.

From the U.S. perspective, the last thing we want is a more turbulent anti-American Middle East. Any coalescing of U.S. enemies and opponents in the region will clearly have dramatic and negative effects, both in the U.S. as well as around the world. A major concern is the high probability that the supply of Middle Eastern oil to the U.S. and the rest of the world will be interrupted for a lengthy period of time. Of course, ramped up levels of terrorist attacks against the U.S. is also a major concern. All this is happening at a time when there is little appetite for more war among the U.S. population and a very limited ability to pay for any further major military activities without dramatic negative effects on the U.S. and probably the world economy, both of which are recovering only mildly and are very fragile. And it is also happening during a period of turbulent pre-election campaigning where the electoral outcome for the U.S. presidency is quite unclear. Many have said that the current situation is more dire and dangerous than the Cuban missile crisis in 1963.

President Obama meets with Bibi Netanyahu tomorrow. Many believe that Netanyahu will reject any proposal that diplomacy and the sanctions against Iran be continued, even escalated. Most believe that Netanyahu is here to tell the U.S. president that they intend to attack Iran, but in the intertest of the U.S., they won't tell us when, where or how they will launch such an attack. That would permit us to claim we had nothing to do with any Israeli attack, a claim not likely to be believed by anyone. Most foreign relations experts think that's the best Netanyahu will offer.

What should President Obama tell Netanyahu? What should the U.S. do? What should we do if Israel attacks Iran? What should we do if the response by Middle Eastern military forces can't be countered by Israel? What should the U.S. do if there are widespread rocket attacks on Israel, with the effect of widespread damage and loss of life?

Let's not get into how the event might play out from a diplomacy perspective. Lots will be said that may not turn out to be either the real intent or true. Do we have the military capability to enter into a widespread land war? Can we afford to do so? Is there a political will in either the U.S. population or in the Congress to authorize a major military response?

My question is what should the U.S. really be prepared to do? Should whatever U.S. response is planned be debated and ultimately voted on by the U.S. Congress? What should President Obama tell Bibi Netanyahu tomorrow?

[Guest]

Yes, any US response must be debated and ultimately voted on by congress as this would be an act of war. I just hope President Obama has better intelligence available than the Bush administration had when going to war in Iraq.

[Guest]

You want to read an excellent analysis on the Obama/Netanyahu summit on the Iranian threat that was published by the Heritage Foundation.

It give a good overview of the situation and thoughtful actions that Obama and Netanyahu should address.

A good read.


Obama-Netanyahu Summit and Iran's Nuclear Threat (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/03/obama-netanyahu-summit-and-irans-nuclear-threat)

[Guest]

We can debate endlessly, but we civilians don't know what the real military options are.

Realistically, might precision strikes by the Israelis effectively delay the Iranian production of nuclear bombs for longer than a few years?

What are the percentage chances that a quick offensive could be successful?

Might the consequences of such actions be 'tolerable', especially if other nations, (read US), were prepared to intercept Iranian retaliatory missiles? By 'tolerable' I mean the amount of damage incurred by Iranian retaliation and the possibility that additional retaliatory actions would be initiated by other nations or groups in support of Iran.

The only thing we really do know is that the Middle East, and, in fact, the world will be at far greater risk on the day Iran can use a nuclear weapon.

[Guest]

We can debate endlessly, but we civilians don't know what the real military options are.

Realistically, might precision strikes by the Israelis effectively delay the Iranian production of nuclear bombs for longer than a few years?

What are the percentage chances that a quick offensive could be successful?

Might the consequences of such actions be 'tolerable', especially if other nations, (read US), were prepared to intercept Iranian retaliatory missiles? By 'tolerable' I mean the amount of damage incurred by Iranian retaliation and the possibility that additional retaliatory actions would be initiated by other nations or groups in support of Iran.

The only thing we really do know is that the Middle East, and, in fact, the world will be at far greater risk on the day Iran can use a nuclear weapon.

This is going to be one of those rare cases where I agree with your entire thought. It can't be helped but to be confused on what to think about this situation pertaining to the thought of a "nuclear Iran".

We've commitments to our ally Israel, but what's the best course, and what are the ramifications of the ultimate decision. Are we projecting weakness or strength? Are we exhibiting a national resolve or or are we being perceived as bumbling? How are we to know with our limited information how our country should handle this?

But, as you aptly point out, a nuclear Iran is in no one's interest; well except Iran of course.

We must stand by Israel; that is clear to me. President Obama is starting to say some things now that sound good. His history of dealing with Israel doesn't give me confidence, though.

It's a very confusing problem, and a wrong answer can be disastrous.

[Guest]

You want to read an excellent analysis on the Obama/Netanyahu summit on the Iranian threat that was published by the Heritage Foundation.

It give a good overview of the situation and thoughtful actions that Obama and Netanyahu should address.

A good read.

Obama-Netanyahu Summit and Iran's Nuclear Threat (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/03/obama-netanyahu-summit-and-irans-nuclear-threat)It is a good read, although it's quite clear that the Heritage Foundation author shares the same hawkish position as Netanyahu. What's troublesome about simply accepting the Heritage recommendations is the fact that our own military leaders recommend against a military strike against Iran by Israel.

As noted in the article, "...the Secretary of Defense and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have publicly warned against an Israeli military strike." Also noted in the article, Obama and Netanyahu do not share the same world view as regards Iran. It seems that the view of our military leaders' is diametrically opposed to that of the Israeli prime minister.

President Obama has demonstrated that he will listen to advice provided by his subordinates--his decision to authorize a kill shot against Osama bin Laden when all of his advisors recommended against the action is an example. So what will he do tomorrow in the meeting with Netanyahu? What should he do? He'll listen to the Israeli position as well as his own generals. He'll have decided what message he'll deliver to Netanyahu and what we'll ask of Israel. His firm statement today regarding what the U.S. might do about the situation is diplomatic posturing in my opinion.

My feeling is that the President should act in the best interests of the United States, regardless of what our historical relationship has been with Israel. They are an ally until they begin to conduct themselves in ways that are inconsistent with long-term U.S. interests.

The president will have to decide how much more war the country can tolerate and afford. How much political and public support will there be for another major war? Then he'll have to decide whether standing foursquare with Israel is consistent with long term U.S. interests. An expectation that an attack on Iran would result in major damage to the U.S. economy and increased terrorist attacks both inside and outside our borders should probably result in Obama telling Netanyahu that our interests may not be in synch and that Israel can expect to go it alone and suffer the consequences of their actions.

Frankly, unless Netanyahu has been a tremendous bluffer, my guess is that is exactly what he expects to hear. And I don't think it will change what Israel plans to do one iota.

[Guest]

Yes, any US response must be debated and ultimately voted on by congress as this would be an act of war. I just hope President Obama has better intelligence available than the Bush administration had when going to war in Iraq.

Why would congress what to waste time debating on an act of war? They have not been interested in following the United States Constitution since WW II, so why start now. Just vote themselves another pay raise, ask their doners for more PAC money, get a better retirement package, paid by the taxpayers and tell us how much they are worried about us. What a deal.

[Guest]

Anyone have any good informational resources for getting more on this issue?

I have not really thought about this all that much except what I have read in the Villages Daily Sun and saw on various national news programs.

Not looking for something with a political agenda either. Just the facts, Mam!

I did start with an article from Wikipedia. Nuclear program of Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran) But, you never really know who is writing these articles??? It does seem to have a lot of useful information.

This issue seems way above anything us citizens can or should do anything about. Not something any of us would seem to have any control over.

Do hope though like with another poster that President Obama has better CIA, State Dept, etc. resources for Iran than Bush had for Iraq.

[Guest]

I prefer the method from the past we all had no problem with and that was we were advised after an action was taken.

The current day venue of discussing whether or when to go to war or strike some one or country of discussing day after day in the media and taking months and months with even our political leaders (loosely applied!) debating in public what they will or won't do is absolutely ridiculous and stupid.

Once upon a time Israel was a nation that if you messed with them you got hit back immediately and is was not unexpected!!! Now they too have devolved to the permissive, pacifism of words, words, WORDS. Complete lack of leadership and resolve!

The classic was Obama last week stating what "HE" was going to do if....and emphasizing.."I" am not bluffing....real worldly, scaring, school yard terminology on the world stage!!

Do what needs to be done, when it needs to be done and let the media know AFTER it is done.

btk

[Guest]

Anyone have any good informational resources for getting more on this issue?...
I prefer the method from the past we all had no problem with and that was we were advised after an action was taken....Do what needs to be done, when it needs to be done and let the media know AFTER it is done.btkI think we're at a point where just watching the daily news will provide as much information as we're going to get on the situation. Speaking for myself, I'm not paying a whole lot of attention to what President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu say. I'm a whole lot more interested in what they do.

For Netanyahu to say that "...Israel reserves the right to defend itself" doesn't mean they're going to attack Iran, although that comes a lot closer to what might happen than Obama saying "...we'll stand by our friend and ally Israel; we've got your back".

In both cases I think there's a whole lot of political posturing going on in an attempt to draw other countries, who have been standing on the sidelines, to enter the situation. Russia and China have not only been non-committal on their support of an Iran anti-nuclear policy, but they've actually blocked formal sanctions in the UN. But both China and Russia will be a whole lot closer to a shooting war in the Middle East than we are. And if oil production and shipping facilities are destroyed in any armed conflict, they will suffer the same consequences that we do.

Us "standing by" Israel is a very undefined term that could range from continuing to try to negotiate and expand the sanctions against Iran to the sharing of intelligence. Or it could mean that we'd finally agree to sell Israel our highest-level "bunker buster" bombs, which until now we've witheld from them. What the President has said is a long way from saying that our naval fleet and troop ships are on their way to the Middle East.

Reach whatever conclusion you wish, but I don't think that the POTUS will make a major commitment of U.S. blood and treasure to assist Israel in attacking Iran without serious conversation and maybe even debate in the Congress. When the President says, "I mean what I say...", that doesn't mean much until he gets the representatives of the people to agree that we're willing to enter and pay for another war. Remember, if people are serious about "listening to the commanders on the ground", our senior-most commanders have already told all who will listen that an attack on Iran is a very bad idea.

And remember, Israel can't just send their bombers directly to Iran. They have to fly over either Turkey, Syria and Iraq, or Saudi Arabia to get there. It's almost certain that none of those countries will approve of Israeli overflights to bomb Iran. Israel's only alternative to violating sovereign air space and encountering unfriendly air defenses would be to fly almost three times the distance to and from, down the Red Sea and around the entire Arabian peninsula and enter Iraq from the Arabian Sea and the Gulf of Oman, a route requiring at least one mid-air refueling and giving Iran hours to prepare it's air defenses. You'll almost certainly be reading news of how Israel might negotiate this obstacle before anything happens.

I think about all we can do to understand the diplomatic posturing and verbiage is to watch the news and see what really happens in the region.

[Guest]

"And remember, Israel can't just send their bombers directly to Iran. They have to fly over either Turkey, Syria and Iraq, or Saudi Arabia to get there. It's almost certain that none of those countries will approve of Israeli overflights to bomb Iran. Israel's only alternative to violating sovereign air space and encountering unfriendly air defenses would be to fly almost three times the distance to and from, down the Red Sea and around the entire Arabian peninsula and enter Iraq from the Arabian Sea and the Gulf of Oman, a route requiring at least one mid-air refueling and giving Iran hours to prepare it's air defenses. You'll almost certainly be reading news of how Israel might negotiate this obstacle before anything happens."

Excellent and very important point.

[Guest]

The recent parliamentary elections will result in Ahmadinejad losing power and Ayatollah Khamenei becoming the uncontested leader of Iran. No moderation of policy is expected from this change. However, an attempt to negotiate with the new Speaker should be made.

Assuming that Iran does not change its course, I can think of only three ways to prevent it from getting nuclear weapons.

1. Invade and install a cooperative government led by leader we approve of such as the Shah. A strong US presence would have to be maintained to assure that there could not be a successful revolution putting an enemy of the United States in power.
2. Conduct a full Naval blockade and at least a partial air and land blockade. This would cause the economic collapse of Iran and provoke serious terrorist actions against the United States and Israel.
3. Make a nuclear attack on all Iranian facilities involved in developing and manufacturing nuclear weapons. This would result in the destruction of Tehran and the holy city of Qom resulting in millions of deaths.

None of these options are attractive and probably none could get the support of the American people. An air attack by Israel may slightly delay the Iranian bomb, but it will not stop it. The Israelis are smart enough to know that an attack by them on Iran will assure a counter attack when Iran comes into possession of nuclear weapons either by producing them or buying them from Pakistan or North Korea. The United States may be struck as well because of our support of Israel.

If President Obama means that Iran will not be allowed to have nuclear weapons he faces difficult choices. Option 2 followed by Option 1 may be the least insane course of action. If we fail to act decisively I believe we will have nuclear war in the Middle East in the near future.

[Guest]

I prefer the method from the past we all had no problem with and that was we were advised after an action was taken.

The current day venue of discussing whether or when to go to war or strike some one or country of discussing day after day in the media and taking months and months with even our political leaders (loosely applied!) debating in public what they will or won't do is absolutely ridiculous and stupid.

Once upon a time Israel was a nation that if you messed with them you got hit back immediately and is was not unexpected!!! Now they too have devolved to the permissive, pacifism of words, words, WORDS. Complete lack of leadership and resolve!

The classic was Obama last week stating what "HE" was going to do if....and emphasizing.."I" am not bluffing....real worldly, scaring, school yard terminology on the world stage!!

Do what needs to be done, when it needs to be done and let the media know AFTER it is done.

btk

btk: you are spot on. Where is John Wane when you need him..Geeez