• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

White House might not have a plan if diplomacy with Iran fails

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has warned in a secret three-page memorandum to top White House officials that the United States does not have an effective long-range policy for dealing with Iran’s steady progress toward nuclear capability, according to government officials familiar with the document...

Mr. Gates’s memo appears to reflect concerns in the Pentagon and the military that the White House did not have a well prepared series of alternatives in place in case all the diplomatic steps finally failed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/world/middleeast/18iran.html

should we have a plan? I'm not sure what the happy medium is between our current approach of toothless sanctions and strongly worded letters versus the other end, "bomb bomb bomb iran."
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
2
0
I think this has been clear for years that the white house has no plan. There is no politically tenable way to deal with iran's progress in this arena.

Iraq absolutely blew any international will for such shenanigans. The only way Iran won't get a nuke is if:

1) It doesn't want one
2) Israel pre-emptively attacks it
3) It gouges the West and other nations for perks while temporarily shuttering progress but only because the perks are so good until it decides it no longer cares (case in point: North Korea)

There never has been, other than an independent attack from Israel, any way at all to stop Iranian nuclear progress except on its terms. The US won't do anything that has any real strength behind it, guaranteed.
 

Sclamoz

Guest
Sep 9, 2009
975
0
0
The reality is there is nothing we can do at this point but slow them down and discourage them from building nukes.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
I think Skoorb has it basically right, GWB as both the little boy who cried wolf and the little boy who can't run a military occupation right has basically guaranteed the UN will say hell no rather than the if you feel froggie they gave to GWB in Iraq.

But the question becomes, is the Gates statement dated? Last time I heard a few days ago, at the close of the world nuclear summit, Obama was expressing some optimism that Russia and China would join on voting tougher Iranian economic sanction in the UN?

As for Israel unilaterally attacking Iranian nuclear sites, I suspect its more Israeli chest thumping than a real threat. Iran is simply too big, too far away, its nuclear sites are too numerous and too deeply buried, and hence its beyond Israeli military capacity without the totally unjustifiable use of nukes. Nor can Israel strike Iran without violating the air space of others. If its Iraqi airspace, the US would be duty bound to stop Israeli trespass and if over Turkish airspace, the Turks may join in a war against Israel instead of staying neutral.

And even if an Iranian counterstrike against Israel did not badly damage Israel, I suspect Israel, already somewhat on probation, would find itself under a total world economic embargo.
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
36,767
10,925
136
Iran will eventually go nuclear, even with Israeli intervention.

That country should be made to understand however that if ever a nuclear weapon is 'stolen' or 'lost' and it ends up being used against us or our allies that Iran will effectively end via massive retaliation.
 

Danube

Banned
Dec 10, 2009
613
0
0
The regime in Iran is hanging by a thread and could be destabilized from within.

The situation could also be helped if the US had a president that wasn't pushing the ME into war by personally embargoing Israeli arms and tying Israel down - and egging enemies on (who he has been sending arms to). Obama has made it clear he is on side of Arabs, Muslims etc and doesn't like Israel anymore than Rev Wright or Bill Ayers do.

Manics run Iran and they think bombing Israel is part of the Mahdi's appearance. Ahmadinejad already thinks the Madhi is steering events. I am sure he's been thrilled to see US suddenly run by a Muslim sympathizer who throws Israel over the side. No doubt he sees that as a sign.


"We see his hand directing all the affairs of the country," Ahmadinejad told theological students in the city of Mashad during a speech that appears to have been given last month but was not broadcast until Tuesday. "A movement has started for us to occupy ourselves with our global responsibilities. God willing, Iran will be the axis of the leadership of this movement,"

Ahmadinejad Criticized for Saying Long-Ago Imam Mahdi Leads Iran



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/07/AR2008050703587.html

It's clear there will definitely be a major ME war (and Israel has already said it will use nukes) and Obama helped stoke it big time.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,110
14,304
136
I think this has been clear for years that the white house has no plan. There is no politically tenable way to deal with iran's progress in this arena.

Iraq absolutely blew any international will for such shenanigans. The only way Iran won't get a nuke is if:

1) It doesn't want one
2) Israel pre-emptively attacks it
3) It gouges the West and other nations for perks while temporarily shuttering progress but only because the perks are so good until it decides it no longer cares (case in point: North Korea)

There never has been, other than an independent attack from Israel, any way at all to stop Iranian nuclear progress except on its terms. The US won't do anything that has any real strength behind it, guaranteed.
2) is a certain way to preclude 1), bet on that.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
The Danube statement is, "Manics run Iran and they think bombing Israel is part of the Mahdi's appearance. Ahmadinejad already thinks the Madhi is steering events. I am sure he's been thrilled to see US suddenly run by a Muslim sympathizer who throws Israel over the side. No doubt he sees that as a sign."

The point is that Ahmadinejad is a motor mouth, has no real power, and is a national embarrassment to Iran. But if Ahmadinejad's stupidity can aid the cause of Iranian moderates in loosening the almost total power of Iranian Mullahs, so he may be a useful idiot.

But still the Danube contention is almost totally based on the hypothesis, that as soon as Iran has a weapon to use against Israel, it will instantly use it. Knowing full well that Israel has far more nukes that would almost certainly cause the death of at least half of Iran's population in the Israeli counterstrike. But still Danube insist Iran is so bat shit irrational that they would not care.

Well, Danube, I point out that Iran already has the means to severely wound if not kill Israel already, in terms of poison gas and huge quantities of weapons it could flood into terrorists hands. Yet Iran has not done so, could it be, gasp, because they are actually rational and not totally irrational as your statement assumes Iran is.

But I suspect the real reason Iran may want nukes, is to provide an immunity from being invaded by hostile powers. And even if they do, the Iranian decision point of stopping at mere peaceful use nuclear powered electrical generation or going on to develop nuclear weapons too is years into the future, Iran is unlikely even then to ever have as many nukes as Israel, and if the mid-east tensions and Iranian threat level reduces later, why should Iran be motivated to go on to nuclear weapons?
 

Noobtastic

Banned
Jul 9, 2005
3,721
0
0




I only wish Obama would learn to be tough on Iran and other enemies of America as he is on historic allies.

Robert Gates was well aware Iran was on the look-out for nuclear weapons and there was no logic to its program. Intelligence agencies from Mossad, MI6, CIA, BND, etc...all disagree with the bogus NIE 2007 report that said Iran's nuclear program hadn't resumed.

Obama put all his marbles on resolving the Israel/Palestinian conflict, or at least give the impression that he is no longer "sucking up to those Zionists."

Dealing with the Muslim states was not on his to-do list. Now his plan to win the affection of the Muslim world has back-fired. Palestinians and Iranians have exploited Obama's immaturity.

I really wouldn't hold it against Israel if it decided to attack Iran. It could have destroyed it a long time ago, with much less fallout, but instead the US, EU, and UN demanded Israel to hold off and allow the international community to disarm Iran.

Yeah, fat chance.

It's been 3.5 years and no results. Israel will have to resume its war with Hezbollah and Hamas eventually, probably before 2015, so it might as well attack Iran during that same time frame.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
I am not surprised at all by the IHV statement of, "I really wouldn't hold it against Israel if it decided to attack Iran."

But the flaw in that logic is that the IHV view is a teeny weenie minority in the world. And most everyone realizes that it would really destabilize the mid-east and the world.
And as I said, likely result in Israeli economic sanctions.

And not even GWB was bat shit crazy enough to allow Israel to bomb Iran on his watch.
 

Noobtastic

Banned
Jul 9, 2005
3,721
0
0
I am not surprised at all by the IHV statement of, "I really wouldn't hold it against Israel if it decided to attack Iran."

But the flaw in that logic is that the IHV view is a teeny weenie minority in the world. And most everyone realizes that it would really destabilize the mid-east and the world.
And as I said, likely result in Israeli economic sanctions.
Wrong. More than 50% of America's population support disarming Iran - by means of diplomacy of military.

More than 65% of American Jews support a military confrontation if it becomes necessary.

Israel really don't give a shit what the UN or EU thinks. They couldn't care less about Jewish rights. Europe has been corrupted by Arab oil and the UN is owned by the OIC.

Nothing the world can do to stop an attack. The Arabs will condemn Israel in public, but I wouldn't be surprised if they secretly aid Israel. I know Saudi Arabia and Israel have had secret talks.

And not even GWB was bat shit crazy enough to allow Israel to bomb Iran on his watch.
GWB didn't want to see his term end with a strike on Iran.

Israel would be stupid not to go after Iran. A nuclear Iran would force the Arab states to become nuclear.

That is what will truly destabilize the Middle East. No way the ME would survive such a scenario.

A strike on Iran will be devestating, but not nearly as devestating as allowing Iran to go nuclear.

We all know Israel will pull out of the peace process if Iran goes nuclear. What's the point if 50% of the Palestinians support Iranian-backed Hamas?

Fuck that.

Israel might bomb Syria as well. They have it coming.
 

Sclamoz

Guest
Sep 9, 2009
975
0
0
Wrong. More than 50% of America's population support disarming Iran - by means of diplomacy of military.

More than 65% of American Jews support a military confrontation if it becomes necessary.

Israel really don't give a shit what the UN or EU thinks. They couldn't care less about Jewish rights. Europe has been corrupted by Arab oil and the UN is owned by the OIC.

Nothing the world can do to stop an attack. The Arabs will condemn Israel in public, but I wouldn't be surprised if they secretly aid Israel. I know Saudi Arabia and Israel have had secret talks.

GWB didn't want to see his term end with a strike on Iran.

Israel would be stupid not to go after Iran. A nuclear Iran would force the Arab states to become nuclear.

That is what will truly destabilize the Middle East. No way the ME would survive such a scenario.

A strike on Iran will be devestating, but not nearly as devestating as allowing Iran to go nuclear.

We all know Israel will pull out of the peace process if Iran goes nuclear. What's the point if 50% of the Palestinians support Iranian-backed Hamas?

Fuck that.

Israel might bomb Syria as well. They have it coming.
Then why is Israel not attacking?
 
Last edited:

SamurAchzar

Platinum Member
Feb 15, 2006
2,422
1
76
I am not surprised at all by the IHV statement of, "I really wouldn't hold it against Israel if it decided to attack Iran."

But the flaw in that logic is that the IHV view is a teeny weenie minority in the world. And most everyone realizes that it would really destabilize the mid-east and the world.
And as I said, likely result in Israeli economic sanctions.
Would the sanctions imposed on Israel be more like the sanctions placed on Israel after it bombed the Iraqi reactor in 1981, or more like the sanctions placed on Israel when it bombed the joint Syrian-N.Korean reactor in 2007? :D

Truth to be told, if Israel goes out and attacks Iran, the world will surely have the obligatory diplomatic spasm, but there is not one Western leader that wouldn't be happy to see the end of the Iranian nuclear program.

Unfortunately I think an attack by Israel is not feasible, at least not a precision strike like the two before.
If there is one reason why Obama will bomb Iran is the fear from a nuclear arms race in the Middle East following an Iranian nuke. Israel will not be the first country to suffer from that - The Sunnis are much more worried than Israel. Saudi Arabia literally encourages US to go and bomb Iran, saying "Sanctions are too little, too late".
 

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
Why should Obama do anything? He can just blame Bush.. as every other liberal in this thread has. Obama doesn't even have a plan to deal with insane unemployment, how could we possibly expect him to come up with a solution to something even more complex? Maybe we could ask the teleprompter for a solution, I think we'd have a better chance at getting a reasonable plan.
 

Noobtastic

Banned
Jul 9, 2005
3,721
0
0
Then why is Israel not attacking?
It will wait until the last possible moment so it can say the international community forced it to act because of their broken promises.

Israel found out Arabs were going to invade 3 days before the Yom Kippur War, but waited for the ambush because it knew America wouldn't support it if it did another preemptive strike like 1967.

This time Israel isn't going to wait for Iran to go nuclear.

Israel has been selling the conflict like Iran poses a threat to everyone, but this is bullshit. Europe does 28 billion euros in trade with Iran. A fraction of the foreign fighters in Iraq are Iranian/Syrian.

Iran only poses a direct threat to Israel, period.

Netanyahu's populist coalition, especially members like Avigdor Lieberman, don't support a strike on Iran, which is why it's been hard to press the red button since half the cabinet isn't willing to agree.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Why should Obama do anything? He can just blame Bush.. as every other liberal in this thread has. Obama doesn't even have a plan to deal with insane unemployment, how could we possibly expect him to come up with a solution to something even more complex? Maybe we could ask the teleprompter for a solution, I think we'd have a better chance at getting a reasonable plan.
And besides, if Iran (or Iranian terrorist proxies) ever did attack the U.S. or its allies, they'd hit some Democratic place like NYC anyway, not some real America red state.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
17,410
2,639
126
If diplomacy and sanctions fail, war is the only other option.
My guess is Obama is simply going to let Israel deal with the problem, they can't allow Iran to have WMD. There will be some posturing from the White house, but no real action.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
Lets see if I can quite get my arms around the power of the IHV statement of "More than 65% of American Jews support a military confrontation if it becomes necessary."

Lets do the math, The USA with a 330 million population is about 1% Religious Jewish.
And only 65% of them would advocate bombing Iran. So 3.3 million votes times .65 equals a whole 2.15 million US Votes compared to a American voting public around 150 million or better.

Get em clue, even the Bat shit crazy Ron Paul vote is bigger than that, so tell me again why Ron Paul did not win the Presidency in 2008?

IHV, What teeny weenie straw will you grasp at next?
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
And only 65% of them would advocate bombing Iran. So 3.3 million votes times .65 equals a whole 2.15 million US Votes compared to a American voting public around 150 million or better.
but it accounts for like 90% of the entertainment and media industries.

what, what? :sneaky:
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,648
3,134
126
The Danube statement is, "Manics run Iran and they think bombing Israel is part of the Mahdi's appearance. Ahmadinejad already thinks the Madhi is steering events. I am sure he's been thrilled to see US suddenly run by a Muslim sympathizer who throws Israel over the side. No doubt he sees that as a sign."

The point is that Ahmadinejad is a motor mouth, has no real power, and is a national embarrassment to Iran. But if Ahmadinejad's stupidity can aid the cause of Iranian moderates in loosening the almost total power of Iranian Mullahs, so he may be a useful idiot.

But still the Danube contention is almost totally based on the hypothesis, that as soon as Iran has a weapon to use against Israel, it will instantly use it. Knowing full well that Israel has far more nukes that would almost certainly cause the death of at least half of Iran's population in the Israeli counterstrike. But still Danube insist Iran is so bat shit irrational that they would not care.

Well, Danube, I point out that Iran already has the means to severely wound if not kill Israel already, in terms of poison gas and huge quantities of weapons it could flood into terrorists hands. Yet Iran has not done so, could it be, gasp, because they are actually rational and not totally irrational as your statement assumes Iran is.

But I suspect the real reason Iran may want nukes, is to provide an immunity from being invaded by hostile powers. And even if they do, the Iranian decision point of stopping at mere peaceful use nuclear powered electrical generation or going on to develop nuclear weapons too is years into the future, Iran is unlikely even then to ever have as many nukes as Israel, and if the mid-east tensions and Iranian threat level reduces later, why should Iran be motivated to go on to nuclear weapons?
Actually you are trying to hard again to sound as if you know shit.
You call ahmadenijad a motor mouthg yet nobody has proven that he is a total 100% figurehead puppet....go fugure...

You seem to think with no proof other than what you dream that Iran has the power through conventional weapons such as gas and it ability to funnel huge quantities of weapons to terrorists that it could cripple israwl...thats such an idiotic and moronic statement.

If dipolomacy fails against Israel you can bet all the Nato nations and the US will help israel indirectly when it does attack iran and squash iran`s nuclear ambition!

You need to hire somebody to pinch your ass and wake you up every so often....
 

theflyingpig

Banned
Mar 9, 2008
5,616
18
0
There will be some posturing from the White house, but no real action.
That's all this administration is good for. Posturing. That and making sternly worded statements. There will be no action from the White House. Iran will have nukes. The US will do nothing. Everyone knows this.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
Even if Israel does end up bombing Iran, two questions still exists, especially since it will take not one but a large number of Israeli separate number of Israeli air sorties to even start to dent Iran.

(1) Israeli air sorties against Iran are exceedingly fuel dependent, to have any chance of returning its plans back to Israel requires all planes to sacrifice the weight of defensive Israeli air to air missiles to repel the limited Iranian jet fighters who have no such weight limitations of weight of air to air missiles or fuel they can carry. As Iran can go to fuel robbing afterburners with total impunity and Israeli jets cannot. Secondly, any Israeli attack is predicated on two things, destroying or jamming all Iranian radar sites, and achieving complete surprise. Israel may have achieved complete surprise in just one much shorter and single past Iraqi and Syrian strikes, but two flaws in that. (a) Its going to now take many Iranian strikes so all surprise is lost. (b) We don't really know good Iranian air to air missiles are? Bottom line, Israel may make a Iranian strike and see it totally shot down before it barely penetrates Iranian borders and well short of target.

2. The second delusion lies in Obama being forced to do something. Wrong, all Obama has to do as President as the most pro-Israeli press nation on earth, is to do nothing, by Abstaining to defend Israel in the form of using the US Veto security council. The rest of the world would cheerfully do the rest in really dope slapping Israel. Total world economic sanction would almost instantly follow against Israel. As for US and world opinion, Israel should not underestimate how much world and US credibility its lost because their recent rapes of Lebanon and Gaza.
 

SamurAchzar

Platinum Member
Feb 15, 2006
2,422
1
76
Even if Israel does end up bombing Iran, two questions still exists, especially since it will take not one but a large number of Israeli separate number of Israeli air sorties to even start to dent Iran.

(1) Israeli air sorties against Iran are exceedingly fuel dependent, to have any chance of returning its plans back to Israel requires all planes to sacrifice the weight of defensive Israeli air to air missiles to repel the limited Iranian jet fighters who have no such weight limitations of weight of air to air missiles or fuel they can carry. As Iran can go to fuel robbing afterburners with total impunity and Israeli jets cannot. Secondly, any Israeli attack is predicated on two things, destroying or jamming all Iranian radar sites, and achieving complete surprise. Israel may have achieved complete surprise in just one much shorter and single past Iraqi and Syrian strikes, but two flaws in that. (a) Its going to now take many Iranian strikes so all surprise is lost. (b) We don't really know good Iranian air to air missiles are? Bottom line, Israel may make a Iranian strike and see it totally shot down before it barely penetrates Iranian borders and well short of target.
We saw how well the Syrian Russian-made defenses worked in Operation Orchard (Israeli bombing in Syria in 2007) against the Israeli countermeasures. 7 planes in, all the way across Syria (touching the Iranian border) and not a single missile fired (or a jet scrambled).

2. The second delusion lies in Obama being forced to do something. Wrong, all Obama has to do as President as the most pro-Israeli press nation on earth, is to do nothing, by Abstaining to defend Israel in the form of using the US Veto security council. The rest of the world would cheerfully do the rest in really dope slapping Israel. Total world economic sanction would almost instantly follow against Israel. As for US and world opinion, Israel should not underestimate how much world and US credibility its lost because their recent rapes of Lebanon and Gaza.
Repeating the same bullshit wouldn't make it stink any less: Why would the world put any sanctions on Israeli, when it didn't do so in 1981 (Iraqi bombing) or 2007 (Syrian bombing), when the Israeli operation actually works in their favor?

I'm sure that if Israel attacks Iran and takes this problem off the US agenda, the American public will show gratitude. Even Hussein Obama won't be stupid enough to deny support from Israel, especially not approaching an election year. That would be siding with Iran, and he doesn't want that.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY