Panetta says Israel could strike Iran in spring: report

[JEDIYoda]

What I know about Panetta is he is about as straight a shooter as they come!
If he says israel will probably do something...well they will.
Just by this article Panetta is basically saying Israel has the means and the capability to do the job!

http://news.yahoo.com/panetta-says-israel-could-strike-iran-spring-report-232458035.html
US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta believes there is a "strong possibility" that Israel will strike Iran's nuclear installations this spring, the Washington Post said Thursday in an editorial.

When asked about the opinion piece by reporters travelling with him to a NATO meeting in Brussels, Panetta brushed it aside.

"I'm not going to comment on that. David Ignatius can write what he will but with regards with what I think and what I view, I consider that to be an area that belongs to me and nobody else," he said.

Here is the article by David Ignatius -- http://www.indystar.com/article/201.../David-Ignatius-Israel-preparing-attack-Iran-

"Israel indicated they're considering this (a strike), we've indicated our concerns," he added.

The Post columnist said Panetta "believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June before Iran enters what Israelis described as a 'zone of immunity' to commence building a nuclear bomb."

President Barack Obama and Panetta are "said to have cautioned the Israelis that the United States opposes an attack, believing that it would derail an increasingly successful international economic sanctions program and other non-military efforts to stop Iran from crossing the threshold," he said.

"But the White House hasn’t yet decided precisely how the United States would respond if the Israelis do attack."

Panetta said Sunday in an interview with CBS that Iran needed "about a year" to produce enough enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon, and one or two more years to "put it on a deliverable vehicle."

Iran insists its nuclear project is peaceful and has threatened retaliation over the fresh sanctions, including possibly disrupting shipping through the strategic Strait of Hormuz.

Israeli media reported in October last year that the option of pre-emptive air strikes on Iran was opposed by the country's intelligence services but favored by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Ehud Barak.

Israeli television said Mossad chief Tamir Pardo raised the possibility of a unilateral strike on Iran during a visit last week to Washington.

 

[Painman]

Israel has good reason to fear a nuclear Iran, but "unilateral" action will not be seen as such... we directly fund way too much of the Israeli's military capability for it to be seen that way. It would be seen as a proxy war.

Luckily for us, our other "allies" in the region don't like Iran much, either. Except for that other "I" country in the region that we just recently "liberated", anyway...

There's no way for this to go down without the US adding yet more layers to the proverbial onion. But if it has to, then it has to.

EDIT: Damn, more than anything else, I want to nuke monotheistic, revealed religion into non-existence.

 

[tweaker2]

Seems like posturing to me, but with Israel's track record, well, they will and have pulled the trigger when they've felt the rumblings of an imminent threat wash over their land, occupied or otherwise, so anything they say along the lines of....."unilateral action" should be taken seriously.

 

[DirkGently1]

"said to have cautioned the Israelis that the United States opposes an attack, believing that it would derail an increasingly successful international economic sanctions program and other non-military efforts to stop Iran from crossing the threshold,"

What a load of rubbish. Sanctions will have zero effect other than to hurt the population. It will however strengthen the resolve of the Iranian leadership.

 

[dmcowen674]

Panetta says Israel could strike Iran in spring

Is this the reason for the huge spike in gas prices last couple days???

 

[Doppel]

Been saying this kind of thing forever. Anyway:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diploma...hit-all-of-iran-s-nuclear-facilities-1.410626

The former IDF chief also indicated that an explosion which virtually destroyed an Iran Revolutionary Guard missile base near Tehran late last year targeted a system "getting ready to produce a missile with a range of 10,000 kilometers, thus threatening the United States."

That's the first I've heard of this--that the explosion at that base was not an accident; this guy saying it was targeted (attacked).

 

[Skitzer]

Good, lets get this show on the road.
I'll be happy when this drama is finally over with.

 

[Sinsear]

God willing

 

[airdata]

Show me the nukes and I'll buy into it.

All of the Iran stuff just looks exactly like Iraq and we all know the story there.

Is this the reason for the huge spike in gas prices last couple days???

Most likely... Gas in my area is up 50 cents in the last 3-4 weeks.

 

[Lemon law]

As we recall, Donald Dumsfeld promised us he could conquer and Stabilize both Afghanistan and Iraq in jig time. Maybe he was 50% right, technically right about the conquer part, but stabilize is 100% wrong.

So lets say Israel unilaterally attacks Iran, and then Iran guerrilla fighters shut the Persian Gulf down for months or years. Despite another Dumsfeld clone in Leon Pinhead saying he can prevent it. And Leon would be right if Iranian guerrilla forces thought inside the same box that Leon Pinhead wants them to. But that is exactly the point, guerrilla forces always think outside the box.

So, come spring, if and when Israel attacks Iran for imaginary reasons and then might find all kinds of initial world gratitude for clobbering the Iranian cat. But if a wounded Iran keeps the Persian Gulf bottled up for even a few weeks and oil prices go over $1000 dollars a barrel and stay there, over 2 billion people in the world who live in oil dependent economies are going to experience deep economic depressions.

And when the larger world realize the author of all their miseries are only 6.5 million Israeli idiots who are both paranoid and overly greedy, It ain't rocket science to predict, the larger world will simply go back to 1948 and rectify the mistake of creating Israel in the first place if they don't nuke Israel instead.

As for Iran, there is not a shred of evidence Iran is developing nukes, but at least Iran is working with IAEA.

 

[irishScott]

As we recall, Donald Dumsfeld promised us he could conquer and Stabilize both Afghanistan and Iraq in jig time. Maybe he was 50% right, technically right about the conquer part, but stabilize is 100% wrong.

So lets say Israel unilaterally attacks Iran, and then Iran guerrilla fighters shut the Persian Gulf down for months or years. Despite another Dumsfeld clone in Leon Pinhead saying he can prevent it. And Leon would be right if Iranian guerrilla forces thought inside the same box that Leon Pinhead wants them to. But that is exactly the point, guerrilla forces always think outside the box.

So, come spring, if and when Israel attacks Iran for imaginary reasons and then might find all kinds of initial world gratitude for clobbering the Iranian cat. But if a wounded Iran keeps the Persian Gulf bottled up for even a few weeks and oil prices go over $1000 dollars a barrel and stay there, over 2 billion people in the world who live in oil dependent economies are going to experience deep economic depressions.

And when the larger world realize the author of all their miseries are only 6.5 million Israeli idiots who are both paranoid and overly greedy, It ain't rocket science to predict, the larger world will simply go back to 1948 and rectify the mistake of creating Israel in the first place if they don't nuke Israel instead.

As for Iran, there is not a shred of evidence Iran is developing nukes, but at least Iran is working with IAEA.

 

[chucky2]

I don't get why Lefties are so scared of someone going to war with Iran, and the cost of oil going nuclear (no pun intended). You'd think they wouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth, but, they're just never satisfied...

 

[Blackjack200]

As for Iran, there is not a shred of evidence Iran is developing nukes, but at least Iran is working with IAEA.

The case for WMD in Iraq was fabricated by the Bush Administration. The world community was enraged by our behavior, and refused to go along.

There is no doubt, on the other hand, that Iran is enriching Uranium. Why are they enriching uranium? Why else would a well-armed nation up to a its eyeballs in oil enrich uranium. Why else would it persist after its centerfuges were wrecked by Stuxnet, it's scientists bombed, and crippling economic sanctions imposed? It makes no sense, it is completely obvious that Iran wants to build a nuclear weapon as quickly as it can.

That's why the Western World is emphatic in their reponse here.

 

[cybrsage]

The world community was enraged by our behavior, and refused to go along.

This would be a good statement to make, if it was not false.

Multilateral support

The original list prepared in March 2003 included 49 members.[108] Of those 49, only six besides the U.S. contributed troops to the invasion force (the United Kingdom, Spain, Australia, Poland, Portugal, and Denmark), 33 provided some number of troops to support the occupation after the invasion was complete. Six members have no military.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

How many countries are there on the planet?

This is a list of sovereign states giving an overview of states around the world with information on the status and recognition of their sovereignty.


The list contains 205 entries. The states are divided using two distinct methods:

1. The membership within the United Nations system column divides the states into two categories: 194 states that are either member states or observer states in the United Nations,[1] and 11 other states.
2. The sovereignty disputes column divides the states into two categories: 13 states whose sovereignty is disputed and 192 other states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries

If we assume there are 205 legitimate countries, we can easily show that alsot 1/4 of the nations supported the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 (23.9%). If the number of legitimate countries is lower, the percentage of countries which supported the UN lead invasion rises.

 

[Jaskalas]

Show me the nukes and I'll buy into it.

Nuclear energy alone is sufficient, no?

Few countries take one but not the other. Iran would not appear similar to Canada, Germany, or Japan in nature, but is more like their North Korean trading partner, or perhaps Pakistan. Point being, they'd be the first kid on the block with a big new toy and the first to protect themselves from invasion.

Better question is, why would you want to wait to see the weapons? By then it's 'too late'.

The whole subject strikes at the very heart of nuclear proliferation, do we or do we not stop it from happening? Is everyone and their dog fit for it?

 

[Pocatello]

When the Israelis say that they will attack Iran, chances are, they won't. What's the point of announcing your "surprise attack" to the world? The Israelis want to put pressure on the West to stop Iran from making nuclear bombs.

 

[PokerGuy]

As much as I'd like to see the iran nuke program pounded into oblivion, it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that iran learned from history and built a bunch of stuff in a bunch of different places. They likely don't have one nice target that can be neutralized, they have a bunch of them, many of which we probably don't even know about yet.

This is a tough one. Whatever happens, I hope it's something the US can get through without real leadership, because we certainly don't have any in DC.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Better question is, why would you want to wait to see the weapons? By then it's 'too late'.

Let me answer that - when people say -- show me the nukes....
That is an arguing point meant to take all the steam out of other peoples arguments.

I agree with you who would want to see Iran have nuclear weapons?
It does not make any sense...

Most of the people who say things like that are also the first to cry foul if you criticize anything Muslim.....

just an observation...

 

[Blackjack200]

Whatever happens, I hope it's something the US can get through without real leadership, because we certainly don't have any in DC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#Death

 

[chucky2]

You want to see the military run Washington? Interesting idea, it may just work!

 

[Blackjack200]

You want to see the military run Washington? Interesting idea, it may just work!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articl...3B_Opinions_of_cabinet_secretaries.3B_Pardons

 

[chucky2]

You linked to OBL's death in reply to someone stating there's no real Leadership in Washington. I can only assume you meant the military, since they're the one that planned and executed the operation that resulted in OBL's death; and throw in the intelligence services involved in there as well.

That's who you want to lead the US? Not arguing with you necessairly, just saying, that's quite a statement to make, exactly for the reason you linked to when replying back to me.

 

[piasabird]

I think this is the USA Fed Govt's way of giving Isreal the Green Light to attack if they want to.

 

[Blackjack200]

You linked to OBL's death in reply to someone stating there's no real Leadership in Washington. I can only assume you meant the military, since they're the one that planned and executed the operation that resulted in OBL's death; and throw in the intelligence services involved in there as well.

That's who you want to lead the US? Not arguing with you necessairly, just saying, that's quite a statement to make, exactly for the reason you linked to when replying back to me.

No, I clearly linked to the death of OBL because his capture was made a priority by Obama, and it was Obama that overruled his advisors and ordered the mission to take down his compound. Whatever your feelings on Obama, that was an excellent example of leadership. If you disagreed with that you could have said why. Instead you quipped that it was actually the military that captured OBL, and I responded with my own quip, that technically, the president is the military.

 

[JEDIYoda]

No, I clearly linked to the death of OBL because his capture was made a priority by Obama, and it was Obama that overruled his advisors and ordered the mission to take down his compound. Whatever your feelings on Obama, that was an excellent example of leadership. If you disagreed with that you could have said why. Instead you quipped that it was actually the military that captured OBL, and I responded with my own quip, that technically, the president is the military.

You were absolutely correct!!
It was even stated on the news that Obama gave the go ahead. Obama could have said NO and Osama would still be alive today!!

What you have is people who hate the POTUS so much that they refuse to give credit where credit is due!
Even when they know they are wrong........