Government in secret talks about strike against Iran

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Iran would respond to U.S. military strikes against its nuclear sites with global attacks by intelligence operatives and Hezbollah teams, The Washington Post reported in an article on its Web site on Saturday, citing unnamed “intelligence and terrorism experts.”

(Excerpt) Read more at today.reuters.com …
 
an attack on iran would be madness, our troops are already tied down in iraq and afghanistan, i think we don’t have the man power to manage 3 military fronts
 
40.png
cainem:
an attack on iran would be madness, our troops are already tied down in iraq and afghanistan, i think we don’t have the man power to manage 3 military fronts
Click to expand...
NATO is responsible for the security of Afghanistan

Take a look at a map. It would still be 2 fronts. Iran is surrounded. But I seriously doubt a military strike on Iran at this time. I’ve been wrong before, but I just don’t see the signals coming out of the US for such a thing. It is interesting that these signals are now coming out of the UK though.
 
40.png
gilliam:
NATO is responsible for the security of Afghanistan

Take a look at a map. It would still be 2 fronts. Iran is surrounded. But I seriously doubt a military strike on Iran at this time. I’ve been wrong before, but I just don’t see the signals coming out of the US for such a thing. It is interesting that these signals are now coming out of the UK though.
Click to expand...
It’s good to have options for when the worst case scenario arrives.
 
I saw a brief discussion on this last night. If this were to happen, Jack Straw’s job would be untenable, at least.

Mike
 
40.png
gilliam:
The UK would be within range of Iranian nukes.
Click to expand...
Everything I have read on this subject indicates that ‘preventatively’ bombing Iran would not only be illegal, it would be very unwise. There would be no way to assure that their nuclear program would be wiped out by such a strike due to the way they have distributed their facilities, including underground.

Bombing may well not work, even if it were the right thing to do. Let’s stick with diplomacy, thanks.

Jack Straw said military action against Iran by the UK was ‘inconceivable’. If we participate in military action against Iran, absent some really major atrocity directly attributable to Iran, then his position would be untenable, and frankly the entire government would be starting to look unstable.

Mike
 
40.png
MikeWM:
Everything I have read on this subject indicates that ‘preventatively’ bombing Iran would not only be illegal, it
Click to expand...
Oh no, the international-law police would come get us, right? 😉

Since the Iranian leaders are the ones suggesting Israel be destroyed, from where I sit, they are already fair game.

In the end, Iran will either comply with the wishes of the UN or they will pay the price for non-compliance. Fortunately, the EU nations don’t appear to be backing down. Could it be they’ve learned they are dealing with irrational people these last 2 years? Remmeber, it was the EU who tried negotiating with Tehran after asking the US to allow for a diplomatic resolution.

From where I sit, the old saw about not being able to negotiate with madmen is still holding true.
 
40.png
MikeWM:
Everything I have read on this subject indicates that ‘preventatively’ bombing Iran would not only be illegal, it would be very unwise. There would be no way to assure that their nuclear program would be wiped out by such a strike due to the way they have distributed their facilities, including underground.

Bombing may well not work, even if it were the right thing to do. Let’s stick with diplomacy, thanks.

Jack Straw said military action against Iran by the UK was ‘inconceivable’. If we participate in military action against Iran, absent some really major atrocity directly attributable to Iran, then his position would be untenable, and frankly the entire government would be starting to look unstable.

Mike
Click to expand...
A nuclear bomb destroying Tel-Aviv or even New York is inconceivable also - yet very possible - nothing to preempt such an action should be off the table.
 
40.png
Geldain:
Oh no, the international-law police would come get us, right? 😉
Click to expand...
There are occasions when breaking the law can be a necessary, and even a good thing. Given that in this case - as I said in the rest of my post - that
it most likely wouldn’t achieve what we wanted, and would make people mad… this isn’t one of those times.

Mike
 
40.png
Brad:
A nuclear bomb destroying Tel-Aviv or even New York is inconceivable also - yet very possible
Click to expand...
In that case, to misquote the Princess Bride, ‘are you sure you know what that word [inconceivable] means?’ 🙂

Inconceivable means that you can’t conceive of it happening. If you think it very possible, then it isn’t inconceivable.
nothing to preempt such an action should be off the table.
Click to expand...
Jack Straw said it. He needs to be held to it.

Mike
 
40.png
MikeWM:
Everything I have read on this subject indicates that ‘preventatively’ bombing Iran would not only be illegal, it would be very unwise. There would be no way to assure that their nuclear program would be wiped out by such a strike due to the way they have distributed their facilities, including underground.

Bombing may well not work, even if it were the right thing to do. Let’s stick with diplomacy, thanks.

Jack Straw said military action against Iran by the UK was ‘inconceivable’. If we participate in military action against Iran, absent some really major atrocity directly attributable to Iran, then his position would be untenable, and frankly the entire government would be starting to look unstable.

Mike
Click to expand...
From what I have read, no one is looking to wiping out the program, if it was attacked. Everything I have read talks about putting the program back a number of years.

I agree, I don’t think it would be wise to attack Iran at this time.

Then again, I don’t have the responsibility to protect the UK either.
 
40.png
MikeWM:
Everything I have read on this subject indicates that ‘preventatively’ bombing Iran would not only be illegal, it would be very unwise.
Click to expand...
To say the least…

It would be madness, IMHO.
40.png
MikeWM:
There would be no way to assure that their nuclear program would be wiped out by such a strike due to the way they have distributed their facilities, including underground.
Click to expand...
There is that. They also would have the ability to strike back in ways that would really hurt. They could make our military situation in Iraq virtually untenable by turning the Shiite population against us. If that happens, I really don’t see how we can maintain our presence there. They can also strike our port facilities in Kuwait and elsewhere in the Gulf. Also, they could target oil refineries in the area as well. Nobody in America wants oil at $200 a barrel, but that could be a result of an Iranian strike. And last but not least, they could unleash a wave of terrorist attacks against American and Israeli targets.
 
40.png
gnjsdad:
There is that. They also would have the ability to strike back in ways that would really hurt. They could make our military situation in Iraq virtually untenable by turning the Shiite population against us. If that happens, I really don’t see how we can maintain our presence there. They can also strike our port facilities in Kuwait and elsewhere in the Gulf. Also, they could target oil refineries in the area as well. Nobody in America wants oil at $200 a barrel, but that could be a result of an Iranian strike. And last but not least, they could unleash a wave of terrorist attacks against American and Israeli targets.
Click to expand...
What does any of this have to do with America’s actual CONPLAN?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top