Obama's new bad man - Iran

[blackangst1]

I realize not everything can be broadcast on the news, but I havent heard anything about this. I guess getting healthcare and running up deficits is more important than how we deal with nuke-wanting countries? I wonder, behind closed doors, if Iran is Obama's new boogeyman...

From Debka

US to Israel: Leave the military option against Iran to us
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report

July 31, 2009, 3:58 PM (GMT+02:00)


US F-22 strike craft
The weeklong US-Israel marathon in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv ending Thursday, July 30 was the platform for the Obama administration's first unveiling of a new US diplomatic-military program for Iran and its nuclear threat, DEBKAfile's military and intelligence sources disclose. The three-staged program was presented by US defense secretary Robert Gates and national security adviser James Jones to prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu, defense minister Ehud Barak, chief of staff Lt. Gen. Gaby Ashkenazy, Mossad chief Meir Dagan and military intelligence head Amos Yadlin.

The new approach consists of three steps for thwarting Iran's drive for a nuclear bomb:

1. Diplomatic engagement as far as it will go. The American officials assured Israel they were aware of the diminishing chances of this track succeeding in view of the Islamic regime's domestic troubles, but the US administration is still determined to give it a chance up until early September.

2. If diplomacy fails, Washington will embark on the phased introduction of increasingly harsh sanctions against Iran, such as an embargo on exporting refined oil products including gasoline to Iran and a blockade on its sea ports.

3. If Iran continues to forge ahead with its nuclear and missile development, the US will resort to its military options. DEBKAfile's military sources report that the American visitors shared with Israeli leaders their specific plans of actions with details of the resources they planned to wield.

Gates and Jones wound up their presentation by stating unambiguously: Iran is a big power issue and it behooves the United States as the leading world power to handle it. So leave it to us and act like an American ally and friendly government. The role they assigned Israel was to leave its military option on the table in order to keep Tehran under pressure.

Our Jerusalem sources report that the Netanyahu government will study the new Obama administration's program and decide how to approach it. On the one hand, Israel's political and defense leaders were provided with the first detailed and coherent Washington has devised for dealing with the prospective Iranian nuclear menace.

It meant that Israel is not alone in the field against the Islamic Republic and has been relieved by the American plan of action of the need to resort to unilateral military action.

But on the other, the intelligence estimates the US and Israel traded in their talks this week differ on Iran's timeline for assembling nuclear warheads and devices. By asking Israel to leave the Iranian nuclear threat to the United States, Gates and Jones were also telling Israel to accept US intelligence's longer estimate of this timeline. This might in the long run turn out to be inimical to Israel's security interests.




I bolded #3 because it reminds me of Bush's pre-emptive plan for Iraq

 

[SammyJr]

We need to leave Iran the hell alone.

 

[lupi]

I won't be holding my breath on bho agreeing to do something once it's been established nothing will change the iranian course before israel does.

Naturally that would be the smart choice, but I see nothing that will change the indecisiveness of the administration changing.

 

[Lemon law]

Some how I doubt debka or blackaiginst1 are privy to any Obama plans or can be spokesmen on the subject.

But in MHO, the debka article is FOS. (1) I doubt Obama puts ant time tables on diplomacy. (2) The US and Israel have beat the drums and beat the drums on strong Iranian sanctions from the UN and the larger world is simply not buying
Israeli paranoia. (3) Since any US military option against Iran will have to ground forces to clean the Persian gulf coast free of missiles, or else any US or Israeli attack on Iran is going to cause a entire shut down of the Persian gulf, and not a oil tanker will move in a decade. Thereby bankrupting nearly all oil based economies in the world. Where are the tanks personnel, and military assets going to materialize from required for a military occupation of the entire Persian gulf coast?

This thread belongs in the complete fiction section of A&N and is hardly even good for a laugh.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
I bolded #3 because it reminds me of Bush's pre-emptive plan for Iraq

Well, at least this President knows how to bark. He'll NEVER bite though.

That you even think he would is astounding.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Let Iran work out it's own brand of Regime change without an excuse to unite against the foreign invader. We may like the results better.

 

[ayabe]

What a joke, we don't have any military options.

1. We don't know for certain all the sites we need to hit.

2. We cannot guarantee that we could destroy said sites even if we knew #1.

3. Iran has been upgrading their AA systems like crazy the past few years and currently neither US the Israel could penetrate their airspace and take these sites out without significant losses.

This is a downside of canceling the F-22 as that's the only other plan we have aside from the B-2 which would have any chance of success against these modern AA systems.

F-15e's will/would get raped.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: blackangst1
I bolded #3 because it reminds me of Bush's pre-emptive plan for Iraq

Well, at least this President knows how to bark. He'll NEVER bite though.

That you even think he would is astounding.

And you base your opinion on what exactly? We have about as much proof he would as he wouldnt. We just dont know.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: ayabe
What a joke, we don't have any military options.

1. We don't know for certain all the sites we need to hit.

ORLY? We, the public, are privy to most of our intelligence? FAIL.

Originally posted by: ayabe
2. We cannot guarantee that we could destroy said sites even if we knew #1.

When is ANYTHING in war guaranteed?

Originally posted by: ayabe
3. Iran has been upgrading their AA systems like crazy the past few years and currently neither US the Israel could penetrate their airspace and take these sites out without significant losses.

Based on....what exactly?

Originally posted by: ayabe
This is a downside of canceling the F-22 as that's the only other plan we have aside from the B-2 which would have any chance of success against these modern AA systems.

F-15e's will/would get raped.

Agreed.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
And you base your opinion on what exactly? We have about as much proof he would as he wouldnt. We just dont know.

Look to the people on this forum and what they think of the military option. Especially the Democrats on this forum. In fact, go ahead and make a poll where people specify their party and the use of the military option.

You'll find that the President is among the party of pacifists and if he isn't young enough to be one, his future successors will be. That one of his basic tenants during the campaign was a pacifistic view of sitting down and having a cup of tea with the likes of North Korea and Iran speaks volumes to me about his bite.

I stand firm in the belief that this man is all bark. I find it plausible that I am mistaken on the issue, but I don?t expect to be.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: blackangst1
And you base your opinion on what exactly? We have about as much proof he would as he wouldnt. We just dont know.

Look to the people on this forum and what they think of the military option. Especially the Democrats on this forum. In fact, go ahead and make a poll where people specify their party and the use of the military option.

You'll find that the President is among the party of pacifists and if he isn't young enough to be one, his future successors will be. That one of his basic tenants during the campaign was a pacifistic view of sitting down and having a cup of tea with the likes of North Korea and Iran speaks volumes to me about his bite.

I stand firm in the belief that this man is all bark. I find it plausible that I am mistaken on the issue, but I don?t expect to be.

Pacifist he may be. But he's already ordered military strikes in his short time in office....or have you forgotten?

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: ayabe
What a joke, we don't have any military options.

1. We don't know for certain all the sites we need to hit.

ORLY? We, the public, are privy to most of our intelligence? FAIL.

Originally posted by: ayabe
2. We cannot guarantee that we could destroy said sites even if we knew #1.

When is ANYTHING in war guaranteed?

Originally posted by: ayabe
3. Iran has been upgrading their AA systems like crazy the past few years and currently neither US the Israel could penetrate their airspace and take these sites out without significant losses.

Based on....what exactly?

Originally posted by: ayabe
This is a downside of canceling the F-22 as that's the only other plan we have aside from the B-2 which would have any chance of success against these modern AA systems.

F-15e's will/would get raped.

Agreed.

1. Neither the US or Israel has complete intelligence on their program, that's a fact.

2. There are also serious repercussions for missing something, like you know, Tel Aviv getting nuked, or in the very least getting pummeled by normal ballistic missles. Not to mention the headaches we'll have to deal with all over the region. We will never again have any chance of advancing our agenda in the ME.

3. Here's some info on AA advances Text

Here's a snippet:
"Advanced Russian technology exports present a major strategic risk for the US, whether operated by China, or smaller players like Iran or Venezuela. These systems will deny access to most US ISR and combat aircraft, with only the B-2A, the ?2018 bomber? and the F-22A designed to penetrate such defences. With its compromised X-band optimised stealth, the F-35 JSF will simply not be survivable in this environment. "

In a nutshell, the influx if western computer technology through the 90's up to now has allowed China/Russia to seriously amp up their weapons. While we aren't threatened directly by either country, they will sell this stuff to anyone with cash, which includes podunk countries like Iran and Venezuela, severely limiting our options.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: ayabe
What a joke, we don't have any military options.

1. We don't know for certain all the sites we need to hit.

ORLY? We, the public, are privy to most of our intelligence? FAIL.

Originally posted by: ayabe
2. We cannot guarantee that we could destroy said sites even if we knew #1.

When is ANYTHING in war guaranteed?

Originally posted by: ayabe
3. Iran has been upgrading their AA systems like crazy the past few years and currently neither US the Israel could penetrate their airspace and take these sites out without significant losses.

Based on....what exactly?

Originally posted by: ayabe
This is a downside of canceling the F-22 as that's the only other plan we have aside from the B-2 which would have any chance of success against these modern AA systems.

F-15e's will/would get raped.

Agreed.

1. Neither the US or Israel has complete intelligence on their program, that's a fact.

2. There are also serious repercussions for missing something, like you know, Tel Aviv getting nuked, or in the very least getting pummeled by normal ballistic missles. Not to mention the headaches we'll have to deal with all over the region. We will never again have any chance of advancing our agenda in the ME.

3. Here's some info on AA advances Text

Here's a snippet:
"Advanced Russian technology exports present a major strategic risk for the US, whether operated by China, or smaller players like Iran or Venezuela. These systems will deny access to most US ISR and combat aircraft, with only the B-2A, the ?2018 bomber? and the F-22A designed to penetrate such defences. With its compromised X-band optimised stealth, the F-35 JSF will simply not be survivable in this environment. "

In a nutshell, the influx if western computer technology through the 90's up to now has allowed China/Russia to seriously amp up their weapons. While we aren't threatened directly by either country, they will sell this stuff to anyone with cash, which includes podunk countries like Iran and Venezuela, severely limiting our options.

Im not disagreeing with you about AA tech...we are in agreement on that. I guess where we disagree is you seem to think we have little to no intel on Iran. Which is VERY presumtuous. Although in the last 20 years our transperancy with our fed gov't is slowly imporoving, to think we know even half of what goes on, militarily, is arrogant. My God father is a retired Air Force 4 star, and he has said many times what Im saying. The public doesnt know the half of it.

 

[Lemon law]

Blackaignst1, The US military has too many military generals who rush to say can do, and when put to the test, they can't do what they promised. And so much for blackaignst1's God father.

Now if blackaignst1 wants to impress us with the credibility of his sources, maybe he should cite his fairy God mother. I too believe in the power of pixie dust, but can't believe in the lack of logic in your sources.

 

[chucky2]

Wouldn't the definition of a good intelligence program be that the least amount of people know the bare minimum necessary to do their jobs?

Talking about "transperancy" when it comes to intelligence is something that should never be happening anyways: We shouldn't be talking about our intelligence efforts, period.

It just baffles me to no end that regular Joe Schmoe's think they're entitled to have views into what we know, as if a.) they're intelligent enough to understand it, b.) them having access would lend something to our effors, c.) they have any credible right to view such info. The correct answer to any of those three is: They don't.

Does anyore seriously think that what they regularly see in the news is what the real deal is? That what the picture the media paints is actually accurate, no spin, no bias, no errors, no left out context, no left out pertinent facts? People seriously believe this???

Chuck

 

[Mani]

Super...let's just sign up for a perpetual state of war in the middle east on Israel's behalf. Oh, wait, we already have.

 

[theeedude]

It's all talk. No one is going to do anything about Iran. Not US, not Israel. Simple risk to reward calculation. Maybe really lucky strike will delay Iran's nuke by a few months. But if it's not effective, then US credibility will have another black eye in the region. Plus Iran is in unique position to create instability and problems for the US in both Iraq and Afghanistan. And an attack will only strengthen the current regime in Iran.
What will happen is what happened with Pakistan and India, Iran will eventually test a nuke and Israel will test one as a response, then MAD.

 

[compuwiz1]

It's gonna be shock and awe all over again. Then we see vids of us taking down all the statues of Ayatolla?

 

[kylebisme]

I'm just going to quote myself from the last time someone posted a story from Debka:

Originally posted by: kylebisme
Heh, the far-right Israeli wingnut site which claimed Al-Qaeda was set to dirty bomb NYC, and have been trying to sick the dogs on Iran at least since back in 2002 when they made the absurd claim that Iran built N. Korea's nukes, among a mound of other ludicrous "reports" they have ran over the years. You'd likely get more accurate information from a Ouija board.

 

[theeedude]

Also, seaport blockade would be an act of war in itself, so it's kind of redundant to say that if that fails they'll resort to military options.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Blackaignst1, The US military has too many military generals who rush to say can do, and when put to the test, they can't do what they promised. And so much for blackaignst1's God father.

Now if blackaignst1 wants to impress us with the credibility of his sources, maybe he should cite his fairy God mother. I too believe in the power of pixie dust, but can't believe in the lack of logic in your sources.

Edited. Removed wiki link to my source. Fuck you man. Insulting a 4 star general who happens to be, for all intents and purposes, family, you have sunk to a new low. Now kindly sit on your condescending attitude and spin. No lube preferred.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
I'm just going to quote myself from the last time someone posted a story from Debka:

Originally posted by: kylebisme
Heh, the far-right Israeli wingnut site which claimed Al-Qaeda was set to dirty bomb NYC, and have been trying to sick the dogs on Iran at least since back in 2002 when they made the absurd claim that Iran built N. Korea's nukes, among a mound of other ludicrous "reports" they have ran over the years. You'd likely get more accurate information from a Ouija board.

If you want we can list the 80% of their assesments/predictions that actually happened...if you want to get into a link fest that is. Next, youre going to tell us Jane's isnt a reliable source for intel....

 

[zoiks]

I think we should deal with Israel first and then Iran.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Pacifist he may be. But he's already ordered military strikes in his short time in office....or have you forgotten?

Starting another preemptive war appears to me to be a vastly different thing.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Pacifist he may be. But he's already ordered military strikes in his short time in office....or have you forgotten?

Starting another preemptive war appears to me to be a vastly different thing.

Im not disagreeing with you on that....I also have never said "I think Obama will attack". Nope. What I said, correctly, was the rhetoric coming out of Obama's White House is similar to what we heard prior to the Iraq invasion. Im not predicting one way or another. But to say Obama WONT is as foolish as say he WILL.