American military strike against Iran likely

[union]

I am predicting that by early next year (2012) the United States will launch a military strike against Iran either using its own forces or Israel by proxy.

In a recent statement Leon Panetta, U.S Defense Secretary, said Iran is very close to getting a nuke and obviously that's very troublesome for US security interests. http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/12/20 ... s-program/

"Despite the efforts to disrupt the Iranian nuclear program, they have reached a point where they can assemble a bomb in a year or potentially less," said US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta in a CBS interview Tuesday, Dec. 20, marking a radical change in US administration policy, he added: "That's a red line for us and that's a red line, obviously for the Israelis. If we have to do it we will deal with it."

http://www.debka.com/article/21585/

DEBKAfile notes that as recently as Dec. 2, the US defense secretary in a lecture at the Brookings Institute in Washington warned Israel that a military attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would hold back its bomb program by no more than a year or two and seriously damage the world economy. He said then that a nuclear-armed Iran would be an existential concern for Israel, but the red line for America would be the disruption of Persian Gulf oil trade.

So there is a major change in rhetoric. The question arises: is this just typical political flip flopping or is the Obama administration preparing the nation for an imminent strike against Iran?

I believe the chances of the military strike happening are very high. First, Obama will want to distract from the economy during the general campaign season and nothing is better than to rally the nation against an enemy. Second there are the Israelis, who have already proven a willingness and capability of striking against the nuclear programs of other nations (see Iraq and Syria) and what are the chances of them just sitting around while a nation that has promised to wipe them from the face of the planet is within months of a attaining nuclear weaponry?

[union]

more from the article:

Pelley then asked: If the Israelis decide to launch a military strike to prevent that weapon from being built, what sort of complications does that raise for you?
Panetta: We share the same common concern. The United States does not want Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. That's a red line for us and that's a red line, obviously, for the Israelis. If we have to do it we will deal with it.
Asked if "it" included military steps, the US defense secretary replied: There are no options off the table. A nuclear weapon in Iran is unacceptable.
He added that he has no indication yet that the Iranians have made the decision to go ahead.
Until now, DEBKAfile's Washington sources note, the Obama administration stood firmly by sanctions, which could be made tougher, as the only course of action for putting the brakes on Iran's weapons program.
However, Panetta made no mention of sanctions in this interview – not even of the ultimate penalties of an embargo on its oil trade and blacklisting its central bank.

DEBKAfile's intelligence sources link this radical change of posture, and its implied open door to joint US-Israeli military action, to the discussion on the Iranian nuclear issue President Barack Obama had with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak in Washington last Friday, Dec. 16. It took place at about the same time as Leon Panetta was meeting with Turkish leaders in Ankara. (The night before, the Turkish military council met urgently to review preparations for war hostilities on two fronts: Syria and Iran.)

1. Panetta has tossed aside the various intelligence estimates of a three-to-four year timeline for Iran to have a nuclear bomb. He now accepts that Tehran may be only months away from this target.
2. His reference to "a hidden facility somewhere in Iran that may be enriching fuel" reflects the growing conviction among Western and Middle East intelligence experts that Iran has fast-tracked its high-grade uranium enrichment in underground facilities.
3. He is no longer warning Israel against attacking Iran and appears to be taking the opposite tack: We must stop Iran crossing the shared red line to an "unacceptable" nuclear weapon. "If we have to do it we will deal with it," he said, referring to the military option.
4. It is the last moment for the US to avert the Middle East's plunge into a nuclear race.
Dec. 5, the former Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Turki al-Faisal said that after failing to persuade Israel and Iran to give up their nuclear weapons, Riyadh had no option but to develop its own; and Turkish leader have been saying to the Obama administration that if Iran has a nuclear weapon, so too will Turkey.
The administration is now facing the bleak realization that a disastrous nuclear race in this volatile region can be deflected only by military action to cut down and destroy Iran's nuclear weapons program.
5. Iran's capture of the American RQ-170 stealth drone on Dec. 4 brought home to US military and intelligence planners that a military showdown between the US and Iran is no longer avoidable and if America does not take the initiative, Iran will keep on driving it into corners until there is no other option but to hit back.

[abdisamad3]

if Iran is touched Israel will be turned to smoke and flames.

[Shirib]

ur opinion on this union?

[Saraxnow]

I don't think Iranians will be caught off guard if it happens as this idea has been entertained for years, but in any case it's their fundamental right to arm themselves as they see fit.

[union]

ur opinion on this union?

I am not particularly excited by the prospect of military intervention in Iran. We just pulled out of Iraq and the nation's blood thirst from 9/11 has been satisfied. However, if we allow Iran to develop nuclear weaponry that will set off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, the world's most volatile region, and that is something we cannot let happen. The greater the number of unstable regimes that have access to the nuke, the greater the possibility that one will go off in unfortunate circumstances. I feel the pros of attacking Iran outweigh the cons and clearly sanctions and diplomacy haven't been working, it's time to act decisively before its too late.

Yours?

[Shirib]

I think a military intervention in Iran would be disastrous both militarily and economically, and should be avoided.

[abgaalKING]

I think The US president obama is doing all he can to get re-elected in the next US presidential election and present himself as a friend of israel and defender of the only democratic jewish state in the middle east.The Jewish voters plus a hefty cash from the powerful jewish lobbies will mostly likely boost his re-election campaign in return ,these guys want iran be punished for pursuing weapons of mass murder and stop iran from dominating the oil rich middle eastern region.Israel sees Iran as an existential threat which must be confronted by all means.in reality how ever,the US public is wary of Unnecessary wars and any attack on iran will unleash Iran Deadly proxies such hisbollah and hamas agains israel and US strategic interets in the persian gulf.The whole region will blaze and the oil prices wil soar up as iran closes the narrow strategic hormuz strait in which more than 30 % of worlds oil ships pass.The wars in Afghanistan,iraq,the rise of militans in nuclear armed pakistan ,the semi weekly drone attacks in somalia and yemen,the unrest in libya and Egypt and now a war with an apocalyptic iranian regime capable of showring israel with Missiles in virtually every jewish city.I dont think it will happen and the best logical outcome of this US -Iranian stalemate is a nuclear armed iran and the US changing its approach from regime change to mutually Assured Destruction.After all,the Mad Mullahs in Iran wont gamble on the great 7000 age old persian civilization and its calture.As sanctions failed and military strike seems unlikely given the current status quo,the persians will gain the upper hand.

[union]

I don't think Iranians will be caught off guard if it happens as this idea has been entertained for years, but in any case it's their fundamental right to arm themselves as they see fit.

I agree, they probably won't be caught off guard. In fact, they potentially may do significant damage against the United States by attacking our warships in the Persian Gulf. Warships are defenseless against anti-ship missiles, and if you've been following the news you'd know that Iran just purchased a whole bunch of those missiles from China.

The thing I wonder is will the Iranians just take it like the Iraqis and Syrians, who were also full of bravado but when push came to shove did nothing, or will they retaliate and potentially escalate the situation to a full scale invasion of Iran?

[ToughGong]

By early next year (2012) the Israel will launch a military strike against Iran either using its own forces or United States by proxy.

Fixed

[udun]

The recent downing of US drone by Iran, and the latest attempts by Iran to blind some of the western satellites have put off all of the western hesteria of initiating attack against Iran. The whole western intelligence have been put to notice, and it is not even clear if any one outside Iran knows the military capabilities of Iran.

Another reason that prevents an attack on Iran is the unity found within the Iranian people when it comes to confronting foreign invasion/attack. These guys are not like the tribal republics in the sunni Islamic world (excluding Pakistan).

However, if Iran is attacked, I hope Iran regime reaps the fruit of what it has done to sunni Muslims in Iraq (2003) and in Afghanistan (2001). While the Iranian regime claims an Islamic credential, the reality is it is very sectarian and has greatly contributed to the suffering caused to many sunni Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[union]

I think The US president obama is doing all he can to get re-elected in the next US presidential election and present himself as a friend of israel and defender of the only democratic jewish state in the middle east.The Jewish voters plus a hefty cash from the powerful jewish lobbies will mostly likely boost his re-election campaign in return ,these guys want iran be punished for pursuing weapons of mass murder and stop iran from dominating the oil rich middle eastern region.Israel sees Iran as an existential threat which must be confronted by all means.in reality how ever,the US public is wary of Unnecessary wars and any attack on iran will unleash Iran Deadly proxies such hisbollah and hamas agains israel and US strategic interets in the persian gulf.The whole region will blaze and the oil prices wil soar up as iran closes the narrow strategic hormuz strait in which more than 30 % of worlds oil ships pass.The wars in Afghanistan,iraq,the rise of militans in nuclear armed pakistan ,the semi weekly drone attacks in somalia and yemen,the unrest in libya and Egypt and now a war with an apocalyptic iranian regime capable of showring israel with Missiles in virtually every jewish city.I dont think it will happen and the best logical outcome of this US -Iranian stalemate is a nuclear armed iran and the US changing its approach from regime change to mutually Assured Destruction.After all,the Mad Mullahs in Iran wont gamble on the great 7000 age old persian civilization and its calture.As sanctions failed and military strike seems unlikely given the current status quo,the persians will gain the upper hand.

No one is denying that war with Iran will have very serious consequences for the region and the entire world, but my argument is that the consequences to the region and the world AFTER they get the nuclear bomb is much more grave than whatever they maybe now. Sure, Iran may bomb a few Israeli cities and sink a few American ships if we attack them now, but if the free world ever goes to war against Iran in the future the devastation will be much greater. Iran is a country that is lead by religious fanatics; in fact President Ahmedjinjhad was heralding the imminent return of the 12th Imam during his UN speech (and guess what precedes the Imams arrival? War and chaos…) and these are not the type of people who should ever be allowed access to a weapon of mass destruction. This is not merely about defending Israel, it’s about the interests of the U.S and the world aswell but the Israelies are natural allies in this. Already very senior delegations have been sent to Israel and the U.S president met with his Israeli counterpart recently. America’s two leading military men are also suggesting that a strike is close at hand. It’s still a prediction on my part, but I feel confident of it.

[eliteSomali]

I am predicting that by early next year (2012) the United States will launch a military strike against Iran either using its own forces or Israel by proxy.

In a recent statement Leon Panetta, U.S Defense Secretary, said Iran is very close to getting a nuke and obviously that's very troublesome for US security interests. http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/12/20 ... s-program/

"Despite the efforts to disrupt the Iranian nuclear program, they have reached a point where they can assemble a bomb in a year or potentially less," said US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta in a CBS interview Tuesday, Dec. 20, marking a radical change in US administration policy, he added: "That's a red line for us and that's a red line, obviously for the Israelis. If we have to do it we will deal with it."

http://www.debka.com/article/21585/

DEBKAfile notes that as recently as Dec. 2, the US defense secretary in a lecture at the Brookings Institute in Washington warned Israel that a military attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would hold back its bomb program by no more than a year or two and seriously damage the world economy. He said then that a nuclear-armed Iran would be an existential concern for Israel, but the red line for America would be the disruption of Persian Gulf oil trade.

So there is a major change in rhetoric. The question arises: is this just typical political flip flopping or is the Obama administration preparing the nation for an imminent strike against Iran?

I believe the chances of the military strike happening are very high. First, Obama will want to distract from the economy during the general campaign season and nothing is better than to rally the nation against an enemy. Second there are the Israelis, who have already proven a willingness and capability of striking against the nuclear programs of other nations (see Iraq and Syria) and what are the chances of them just sitting around while a nation that has promised to wipe them from the face of the planet is within months of a attaining nuclear weaponry?

NO NO! But the reverse is a possibility.

[eliteSomali]

By early next year (2012) the Israel will launch a military strike against Iran either using its own forces or United States by proxy.

Fixed[/qu
Israel knows how to **** America over and get away with it. Paradoxically, America comes to Israel's rescue in a heartbeat.

[Basra-]

I dont think so union. Nice try though. Obama will not strike Iran--he doesnt have the hutzbaah, now if Newt or Perry is the prez, then definitely a posibility.